Beyond the Boundaries of Paper:
A Gesture-sensing Pen for Interfacing Physical Content
with Digitally-augmented Surfaces
ARCHIVES
by
Sheng-Ying Pao
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE
OF TECHNOLOLGY
M.S. Media Arts and Science
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
JUN 12 2015
2010
LIBRARIES
M.S. Biomedical Engineering
National Taiwan University, 2004
Submitted to the
Program in Media Arts and Sciences,
School of Architecture and Planning,
in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
June
@
2015
2015
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All rights reserved.
Signature redacted
Signature of Author
"rogram
I
/
Nj
in Media Arts and Sciences
Mar 31, 2015
Signature redacted
Certified by
Kent Larson
Principal Research Scientist, MIT Media Lab
Thesis Supervisor
Signature redacted
Accepted by
Professor Pattie Maes
Academic Head
Program in Media Arts and Sciences
2
Beyond the Boundaries of Paper:
A Gesture-sensing Pen for Interfacing Physical Content with
Digitally-augmented Surfaces
by
Sheng-Ying Pao
Submitted to the Program in Media Arts and Sciences,
School of Architecture and Planning, on March
31, 2015
in
partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Abstract
Humans are inherently creative and we have the desire to express and
communicate. Pen and paper have been effective means of creation, expression, and
communication for centuries. Today, technology increasingly permeates our environment
but the spread of digital displays makes us more susceptible to passive viewership. What if
we could combine the benefits of technology and pen and paper to empower people to
become more active creators? This thesis explores new affordances for pens that become
an interface to transcend the boundaries of paper through a series of gesture interactions
that a) transfer content from the surface of creation (i.e., paper) onto surface of attention
(i.e., intended surfaces in the immediate or remote locations); b) enable dynamic
interactions across time by allowing users to create and transform static drawings on
paper into an animated expression; c) maintain privacy for content creation while
allowing users to selectively share only chosen content in real-time; d) explore the impact
of gesture embodiment on audience engagement and shift their perspectives from being
passive viewers to active creators. A series of usability studies were designed and
conducted to evaluate the platforms and to explore how people may expand physical
content beyond the boundaries of paper with the system. Beyond laboratory development,
this thesis also presents the real-world deployment of the gesture-sensing pen as an
interactive installation in a museum exhibition. Potential applications range from
collaborative workspaces to participatory art experiences. Issues relating to creative
process, sharing and privacy, and usability are examined in light of the interactive nature
of the system.
Thesis Supervisor: Kent Larson
Title: Principal Research Scientist, MIT Media Lab
3
Beyond the Boundaries of Paper:
A Gesture-sensing Pen for Interfacing Physical Content with
Digitally-augmented Surfaces
by
Sheng-Ying Pao
Signature redacted
Advisor
I
Kent Larson
Principal Research Scientist, Media Lab,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Signature redacted
Thesis Reader
Pattie Maes
Professor of Media Arts and Sciences,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Signature redacted
Thesis Reader
William Porter
Professor Emeritus, Department of Architecture,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
6
7
8
Acknowledgments
First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor,
Kent Larson, who has believed in me for the past three years. He generously
provided freedom for me to pursue my research interest through a wide
variety of projects, including the ones that have been incorporated in this
thesis. His trust in me also allowed me to initiate new projects and enabled
me to coordinate major components throughout the process, leading to
fruitful collaborations and exhibitions. His guidance through the final
stages of my writing shaped the scope of this thesis. Without him, this
thesis would have not been the same.
My sincere thanks also go to my thesis committee members,
Professor Pattie Maes, current Academic Head of the MIT Media Lab, and
Professor William Porter, the former Dean of the School of Architecture at
MIT. Pattie always patiently listened to my thought process and generously
provided her insightful feedback on both engineering and design. She
communicated with me not only through language but also through the
research itself. Bill constantly shared his wisdom with me. He always
connected my ideas with unexpected research domains, as he always
captured the shared philosophy hidden behind them, which further
expanded possibilities for this research.
I thank the Media Lab Director Joi Ito for his time, advice, and
support during the years of my PhD study. I would also like to extend my
sincere thank to Professors Deb Roy, Alex Sandy Pentland, Andrew
Lippman, Hiroshi Ishii, Chris Schmandt, Joseph Paradiso, Rosalind Picard,
Hue Herr, Tod Machover, Pawan Sinha, Mitchel Resnick, Hal Abelson,
Cesar Hidalgo, Edward Boyden, Michael Bove, Henry Holtzman, Leah
Buechley, Henry Lieberman, Rob Millar, Marvin Minsky, and Deans Staton
and McKnight in MIT Office of the Dean for Graduate Education for their
insightful feedback and guidance throughout my study at MIT.
I am deeply grateful to my early collaborators and supervisors from
Cisco Systems, Inc.: Dr. Steve Fraser, Dr. Ammar Rayes, Stephen Quatrano,
Alexander Reben, and many others. They offered me the opportunities to
9
work with a variety of teams in the company, connecting the industry's
needs with my academic research. Cisco also created an unprecedented
fellowship to sponsor two years of my research.
Special thanks to Leila Kinney, the Executive Director of Arts
Initiatives in MIT; Sam Magee, the manager of MIT Student Arts Programs;
and the MIT Arts Office for their encouragement and their invitation to
present part of this thesis in the emerging creative context which bridges
arts, design, and technology.
I thank the ACM Multimedia Art Exhibition Chairs, Professor Marc
Cavazza and Professor Antonio Camurri, for reviewing my work and
selecting it for the exhibition. I especially thank Dr. Jochen Huber, Yichao
Jin, and Professor Yonggang Wen who kindly helped me transport initial
important components of my art installation to Barcelona and coordinated
with many others from the Fostering Arts and Design Museum and from
the ACM Multimedia community to make the museum exhibition a success.
I was fortunate to be given the opportunity to supervise, teach, and
work with brilliant MIT undergraduate students, including Brandon
Vasquez, Seth Berg, Isaac Fenta, Caleb M Lin, Payut Pantawongdecha, Jacob
Shearman, Anna L Waldo, Tiffany J Wong, Jemale Lockett, Joie Chang,
Koharu Usui, Adwoa Boakye, Catherine Zuo, Carlos Rubio, Leopoldo
Calderas, Fernand Trujano, Sami Alsheikh, Rachel Yang, Morgan Voss, and
many others. I appreciate their participation and contribution while
pursuing their undergraduate research with me at different stages of my
projects.
I thank the organizers, judges, and committee members of the 4oth
International Conference and Exhibition on Computer Graphics and
Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH 2013) for selecting my research to win
the ACM Student Research Competition. I would like to extend my thanks
to Microsoft Research who sponsored the award and for the opportunity for
me to present my research. I thank the MIT iooK committee, mentors,
organizers, and judges for their feedback on my projects that were selected
as finalists in MIT iooK Entrepreneurship Competition and MIT ioK
Creative Arts Entrepreneurship Competition. I also thank Ralph Wiegmann
10
and the international jury for the iF Design Award for recognizing my work
among several thousands commercial entries from 55 countries to win the
2014 iF Communication Design Award.
I am truly grateful to Linda Peterson, Keira Horowitz, Aaron Solle,
William Tilden, Tesha Myers, Mary Heckbert, Cynthia Wilkes, Robert
Marlatt, Nicole Freedman, Amna Cavalic-Carreiro, Mirei Rioux, Yuko
Barnaby, Deborah Widener, John Werner, Alexandra Kahn, Ryan McCarthy,
Felice Gardner, Stacie Slotnick, Janine Liberty, Jessica Sousa, Taya Leary,
Paula Aguilera, Jonathan Williams, Tom Lutz, Kevin Davis, Greg Tucker,
Bill Lombardi, Marissa Wozniak, Joost Bonsen, Michail Bletsas, Jane Wojcik,
Will Glesnes, Peter Pflanz, Analisha Centeno, Simone Ovsey, David Cranor,
Arthur Petron, Travis Rich, Matt Stempeck, Austin Lee, Misha Sra and
many others in the MIT Media Lab. I would like to extend my sincere
thanks to the Changing Places Group members: Ryan Chin, Topper Carew,
Katja Schechtner, Jarmo Suominen, Tyrone Yang, Ramiro Almeida, Caleb
Harper, Rich Fletcher, Mohammad Hadhrawi, Carlos Ol~barri, Agnis Stibe,
Yuki Minoda, Ira Winder, Carson Smuts, Michael Lin, Sandra Richter,
Wolfgang Gruel, Carson Smuts, Hasier Larrea, Praveen Subramani, Sotirios
Kotsopoulos, Luis Alonso, Jason Nawyn, Daniel Goodman, Layla Shaikley,
Phil Tinn, Shaun Salzberg, Jennifer Broutin Farah, William Lark, Nicholas
Pennycooke, Praveen Subramani, Waleed Gowharji, and many others.
My sincere thanks also go to Rebecca Thorndike-Breeze, Marilyn
Levine, Thalia Rubio, Steven Strang, and many others from Writing and
Communication Center for their valuable feedback on academic writing. I
also thank Felicia Lombardozzi, Michael Keohane, and the committee and
staff in MIT COUHES Office; Sergeant Richard Sullivan and Detective
Robert Wilcox among others of MIT Police, and many others in MIT
community.
Special thanks to Section Chief Ching-Fong Dong, Section Chief
Li-Ying Chen, and many others in Ministry of Education in Republic of
China; Director General Scott Lai, Director Wei-Yu Huang, and all members
in Education Division, Taipei Economic and Cultural Office; Director
Edward Kuo, Culture Center Of Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in
Boston; Senior Vice President Da Hsuan Feng, the NTHU Alumni Service
11
Center, and many others in National Tsing-Hua University and National
Taiwan University for all their encouragement and support.
I would like to acknowledge those who have encouraged me
throughout the years: Frank Graziano, Edward Vander Bilt, Steven Miller,
Paul Noll, and many others from Steelcase; Adekunle Adeyemo, Santiago
Alfaro, Sachin Banker, Yubo Bao, Axel Bauerle, Heather Beam, Michael
Bernstein, Abhijit Bendale, Ted Benson, Rahul Budhiraja, Albert H Chang,
Angela Chang, Chaochi Chang, Michael Chang, Chih-Yu Chao, Annie Chen,
Chia-Hsin Owen Chen, Jacky Chen, Nancy Chen, Tiffany Yuhan Chen,
Cheng-Wei Cheng, Nadia Cheng, Ewan Tze-Yuan Cheng, Wei-Shan Chiang,
Doreen Chou, Chih-Chao Chuang, Jaewoo Chung, Keywon Chung, Victor
Costan, Dhairya Dand, Artem Dementyev, Ermal Dershaj, Micah Eckhardt,
Ken Fukasawa Endo, Hsin-Yu Fang, Mark Feldmeier, Cristian Jara Figueroa,
Szu-Chin Fu, Devon Geilich, Kilian Gersing, Nanwei Gong, Drew Harry,
Javier Hernandez, Valentin Heun, Shawn Ho, Chih-Yan Hsiao, Yu-Chung
Hsiao, Andy Hsu, Yu-Jie Hu, Elinor Huang, Yen Chia Hsu, Dawsen Hwang,
Elly Jessop, Gonglue Jiang, Sunny Jolly, Jermain Kaminski, Mihir Kedia, John
Klein, Ben Kroop, Lisa Kang, Cindy Hsin-Liu Kao, Sean Kao, Matthew
Keeter, Taemie Kim, John Klein, Oren Lederman, Sang-won Leigh, Jackie
Chia Hsun Lee, Jacqueline Lee, Jen Lee, Jinha Lee, Jossy Lee, Kwan Hong
Lee, Yen-Jie Lee, Daniel Leithinger, Seastar Lin, Harris Liu, John Liu,
Shun-Ping Liu, Emily Lovell, Nathan Matias, Chao Lun Mai, Anmol Madan,
Daniel McDuff, David Merrill, Becky Mieloszyk, Pranav Mistry, Olivier
Morere, Bo Morgan, Selene Mota, Dorothy Najda, Dan Novy, Daniel Olguin
Olguin, Jifei Ou, Jeff Orkin, Howard Pan, Li'an Pan, Jie Qi, Philipp Robbel,
David Robert, Eric Rosenbaum, Ming-Zher Poh, Yukkee Cheung Poh,
Jeremy Rubin, Akane Sano, Ana Luisa Santos, Peter Schmitt, Susanne
Seitinger, David Sengeh, Shu-Heng Shao, Dawei Shen, YiChang Shih,
Jun-Han Su, Richard The, Afay Tseng, Hua-an Tseng, Hsien-Chung Tseng,
Min Tseng, Kawandeep Virdee, Liz Voeller, Ben Waber, Lu Wang,
Hsueh-Cheng Nick Wang, Chunglin Wen, Grace Woo, Xiao Xiao, Lining
Yao, Shih-Ying Yao, Carl Yu, Darren Yu, Amit Zoran, and many of my
beloved friends near and far.
12
My deepest gratitude goes to Alexander Reben, without whom I
could not have completed this long journey. Alex initially collaborated with
me on the first iteration of the project that led to this thesis work. Even in
my later iterations towards the thesis, he provided invaluable input of the
development and feedback on my writing. His inspiration always came with
the most whole-hearted encouragement, patience, and selflessness.
Without him, this thesis would never have been born.
Finally, my biggest thanks go to my family: My Mom, who
encourages me in different ways and never lets me give up through the
most difficult times; my Dad, who bears with my being so far away from
home, especially during family emergencies; my sister, my brother, and
extended family who have always been there for me; and my grandparents,
whose unconditional love gave me the strength to overcome challenges,
and who showed me how to be humble and caring.
Thank you all!
13
14
Table of Contents
Abstract ...............------------------------------------------------..................................................
3
Acknowledgments...............................................................................................
9
Chapter i Introduction.......................................................................................21
i.i M o tivatio n
1.1.1
.............................................................................................................
21
Transcending the boundaries of paper ....................................................
22
1.1.2
From passive observer to active creator ......................................................
27
1.1.3
Audience engagement and interaction.....................................................
28
1.2
Scope of the Research .....................................................................................
30
1.3
Structure of the Dissertation ..........................................................................
33
Chapter
2
Background.....................-----------
--
----
--
----..............................................
37
2.1
Why Pen and Paper .........................................................................................
37
2.2
Systems Integrating Pen and Paper with the Digital World ........................
39
2.3
Interaction across Space and Time...............................................................
42
2.4
Creation and Sharing Privacy ........................................................................
44
2.5
Sketching and Gesture Interactions .............................................................
46
Chapter 3 Pen-based Interactions that Cross the Physical and Digital
Realms ....................................................................................................
49
3 .1 P u rp o se .................................................................................................................
49
3.2
Design Considerations......................................................................................
3.3 Interactions ...........................................................................................
51
... 54
3.4 System Design ...........................................................................................
58
3.5 Ap p licatio n s.........................................................................................................
63
3.5.1 Augmenting remote surfaces ....................................................................
15
63
3.5.2 Augm enting local objects .........................................................................
66
3.5.3 Lim itations.................................................................................................
67
Chapter 4 Dynamic Interaction across Time...................................................
69
4.1 Purpose.................................................................................................................69
4.2
Interactions .....................................................................................................
70
4.3 Im plem entation ..............................................................................................
71
4.4 Applications .....................................................................................................
75
4.4.1 Interactive visual expression ....................................................................
75
4.4.2 Participatory experience and social engagem ent...................................
76
Chapter 5 Sharing and Privacy...........................................................................
77
5.1 Purpose.................................................................................................................
77
Interactions .....................................................................................................
78
5.2
5.3 Im plem entation ..............................................................................................
79
5.4 Applications .....................................................................................................
8o
Chapter 6 Evaluation.........................................................................................
83
6.1 Usability Study Design....................................................................................
83
6.1.1 Free content creation and sharing............................................................
84
6.1.2 Group interactions ...................................................................................
86
6.1.3 Rem ote interaction using Selective Sharing..........................................
88
6.2 Subject Recruitm ent ......................................................................................
94
6.3 Study Procedure...............................................................................................
94
Chapter 7 Results and Discussion .....................................................................
7.1 Gesture U sability ................................................................................................
99
100
7.1.1 Flicking..........................................................................................................100
7.1.2 Tw isting .........................................................................................................
16
101
7 .1.3 A ccu racy .......................................................................................................
103
Collaboration, Social Interaction, and Self-reflection.....................................104
7.2
7.2.1
Comparing using MoveInk with using a regular pen in a collaborative
d raw in g ..............................................................................................................................
10 4
7.2.2
Social cue and turn-taking .........................................................................
7.2.3
Impact on the creation process..................................................................107
7.2.4
Engagement and self-reflection during the collaboration process.........io9
107
il
7.3 Selective Sharin g .................................................................................................
i
7.3.1 The Selective Sharing gesture usability.......................................................
7.3.2
The Selective Sharing gesture usability......................................................113
7.3.3 Comparing those who enjoy being in the spotlight vs. those who are shy
............................................................................................................................................ n 6
7.3.4 Potential new applications using Selective Sharing .................
7.4 O ther Findings...................................................................................................
Chapter 8 Real-world Deployment ......................................................................
8.1 MoveInk as an Interactive Art Installation ......................................................
8.2
8
.
119
125
125
The Museum Exhibition Design.......................................................................127
8.2.1 The interactive experience..........................................................................128
8.2.2 The view ing experience ..............................................................................
128
8.2.3
From exhibition design to technical implementation .............
128
8.2.4
Bringing the exhibition to life....................................................................135
8.3 Audience Participatory Experience: Changing Perspectives ..........................
138
8.4 Audience Participatory Experience: Inspiration from the Creation Process .141
8.5 Audience Participatory Experience: Engaging Audiences through Gesture
In teractio n s ...........................................................................................................................
14 4
8.6 Audience Participatory Experience: Spontaneous Co-creation.....................147
17
8.6.1 Synchronous group co-creation .................................................................
147
8.6.2 Asynchronous co-creation .........................................................................
149
Chapter 9 Conclusion and Future W ork..............................................................
9.1 Contribution ........................................................................................................
151
151
9.2 Future Work.......................................................................................................155
References ...........................................................................................................
159
Appendix .............................................................................................................
167
Appendix A
Usability Study
Questionnaire
i ..................................................
169
Appendix B
Usability Study Questionnaire
2.1................................................
170
Appendix C
Usability Study Questionnaire
2.2
Appendix D
Usability Study Questionnaire 3--------------------..........................-----
Appendix E
Usability Study Questionnaire 4...................................................175
Appendix F
Usability Study Questionnaire 5 -.. ------..........................
176
Appendix G
Consent Form ................................................................................
177
Appendix H
Subject Recruitment .................................................................
183
Appendix I
COUHES Approval Letter ..............................................................
185
18
................................................
171
173
19
20
Chapter 1
Introduction
.i Motivation
Since our ancestors, humans have recognized the importance of
using drawings to communicate ideas and express feelings. Leveraging
surrounding physical spaces, they created visual artifacts on various
surfaces such as cave walls, ceilings, and stone tables. The origin of using
cave surfaces for drawings can date back to around 40,000 years ago, in
both Asia and Europe.
21
We no longer live in caves, but we continue to use drawings to
communicate and express ourselves. As early as 40oo BCE, the Egyptians
used pens to produce hieroglyphics on papyrus scrolls. Since the
invention of paper and the development of modern fountain pens, these
tools have served as two of our most important media in communication.
In the US market alone, over $4 billion of pens are sold and about ioo
million tons of papers are produced and consumed per year.' Today, pens
and paper still remain major instruments of creativity and communication
despite the ubiquity of computers.
1.1.1
Transcending the boundaries of paper
The action of drawing and creativity is not static but is vigorous.
The process consists of developments on two-dimensional surfaces over a
period of time. However, paper has boundaries. Content created on paper
is static, still, and inactive once the creation is completed. What if a static
drawing could be presented in a dynamic way that reflects the action and
vigor of creativity?
In order to do that, this thesis focuses on transcending the time,
location, and physical-digital boundaries with pen and paper. We must
also consider the interactions in terms of creator-audience engagement
and their interactivity.
1
Data source: Writing Instrument Manufacturers Association
(http://www.wima.org/Home/tabid/57/Default.aspx)
22
From the surface of creation to the surface of attention
Sketching is an act of representing our ideas in visual forms.
Although pens and paper are widely accessible, the content created with
them stays within the physical borders of paper. The purpose of making
such physical representation of our thoughts is to allow the ideas to be
expressed and seen by others. People have thought of distributing the
physical representation in different ways, such as by making large prints
for public viewing, making multiple physical or digital copies of the
drawings to reach remote audiences, and using post-it notes to assign
visual cues situated in the environment.
Moreover, sometimes we may skip the use of paper and directly
annotate physically on the surface of objects. For example, children paint
on the walls; constructors note measurements on the furniture; event
planners draw signs on the floor. This happens when the physical objects,
rather than the paper itself, are the center of the attention.
The surface of attention, however, can be more than one surface
and can be switched dynamic among one another, depending on the
communication interfaces in use. For example, in face-to-face group
communication, each participant may grab a piece of paper to sketch out
ideas individually, while the whiteboard is the space for shared visual
representation. Our focus can move back and forth between the
whiteboard and our own piece of paper, or between each other's paper
within physical proximity.
23
The surface of attention may not be the paper itself anymore once
the drawing is completed. Surrounding physical objects are powerful tools
to mediate communication. For example, everyday objects become topics
of conversation, and designers use foam models or Lego bricks to
communicate their designs. Thus the surfaces of such physical objects
become surfaces of attention. What if, when an object becomes the center
of the attention, the content we draw could take off from physical paper
and land on the surface of the object we are looking at?
In addition, it is important to maintain privacy during the creative
process. The surface of attention is for representation of the visual
creation. It is a public, shared space that can be openly seen by others. On
the other hand, the surface of creation should support the process of
creation that can be highly personalized and private. Would users wish to
share the full content created privately? This thesis introduces the
concept of crossing the private surface of creation and the public surface
of attention thus to move the creation across in real-time.
Pen and paper is the vehicle, through which our thoughts can be
transmitted, expressed, and seen by both others and ourselves. This thesis
considers the modalities of a pen to enable our thoughts to travel from
one surface to another, i.e., from the surface of creation to the surface of
attention. With regard to surfaces of creation, this thesis focuses on the
use of paper, although the methodologies and the interactions created
here can also be applied to drawing surfaces other than paper.
24
Crossing the boundaries ofphysicality
We are entering a world where we will be increasingly surrounded
by screens and digital surfaces. The most up-to-date information on the
screens catches the attention of each and every one of us. While pen and
paper remain one of the most important tools to create and communicate,
they are segregated in their own physical world. What if we could take the
best of both worlds - taking advantage of the increasing ubiquity of digital
displays, and leveraging the power of pen and paper - to pass the drawing
beyond the boundaries of paper?
Considering the above, the surface of attention in this thesis
focuses on the digital surfaces around us, such as projections and digital
screens. This thesis explores how to cross intuitively transfer the content
from the surface of creation (paper) to the surface of attention (digital
displays) in real-time. We consider designing intuitive interactions using a
pen to cross the digital and physical realms.
As we consider crossing the boundaries of physicality, we must also
consider the need in bridging the gaps across spaces. As knowledge work
increasingly becomes distributed and mobile, there is a growing need in
supporting
remote
communication.
Besides
interacting
with
the
immediate environment, new modalities and interfaces to address the
needs situated in remote environments have yet to be created.
25
Crossing the boundaries of time
Imagine being able to see every step in your favorite artist's
process, weeks, months, even years after the final piece is created as if
they were drawing it in front of you. Would that open up new
opportunities to interpret the work differently than seeing just static
drawings? While we cannot go back in time and watch past artists
creating their drawings, we can design new media to present static
content in dynamic ways.
This thesis considers the representation of time on the physical
page. As we design interactions in a temporal context, what if we could
dynamically transform still artwork on paper into animated forms? Would
that animation reflect the process of creativity as a function of time, as if
we could revisit the way the drawing was composed on paper? What
Mnrdalities nf;! apn can effecrtively aind intulit;Ively Penab1,C sch- interactins
across time? How may these interactions impact audience engagement?
Would the interactions impact how people create both individually and
collaboratively in the real world?
In summary, this thesis explores the opportunities that leverage
the benefits of pen and paper to transcend the boundaries of paper,
enabling our thoughts to travel from the surface of creation to the surface
of attention. To do this, we consider how to intuitively transfer content
created on paper to the digital surfaces while the user's attention shifts.
Furthermore, it is important to consider how to harness the creative
26
power of pen and paper to seamlessly transfer content across platforms
and across time, and to represent the static content with its dynamic
nature. In doing so, we must also consider new opportunities these new
media can offer to support interactivity, and the impact on audience
engagement and interactions.
1.1.2
From passive observer to active creator
Digital technologies increasingly permeate our environment and
we are more aware of their significance to our lives. In parallel, the spread
of digital displays cause a shift in our activities -- as the monitors grow
bigger, the display resolution goes higher, and computation speed gets
faster, they become the primary interfaces for information. However, the
content on these screens is usually predefined. The information on these
displays is usually generated by service providers or unknown third
parties. This makes us more susceptible to passive information receiving.
Are we really interested in being passive observers?
As humans, we have the desire to express ourselves.
From
hand-carved patterns in tree bark to graffiti in public space, humans
leverage the environment as an interface to create visual cues that they
use to express feelings and communicate ideas. Each of us has something
to express and we want our creations to be seen.
Surrounded by digital screens, I started to explore new ways for
people to become active creators and express their ideas, rather than
27
being passive observers. Given the benefits that digital technology and
pen and paper can provide, I wanted to expand the physical affordances of
a pen, and thus empower users not only to create but also to interact with
their creation.
This leads to new interaction designs, which may switch the users'
perceptions between being passive observers and active contributors.
Furthermore, can this also change the way people create and share? Can
this open up new opportunities for creators of a work to interact with
viewers?
1.1.3
Audience engagement and interaction
The creator-viewer relationship is evolving especially in the context
of art. Traditionally, museum art is created by professional artists and,
according to artist Nick Zangwill, "audiences are ignored because many
see the primacy of meaning and pleasure in the artwork as residing in a
supposed unmediated understanding of the specific work or in the artist's
intention" (Zangwill
1999).
However, according to Allan Kaprow, a
pioneer in developing the performance and installation art theories of
"Environment"
and
"Happening,"
institutionalized
"artlike
art"
is
distinguished from "lifelike art". "Artlike art" is segregated from reality, as
opposed to "life-like art", which is inseparable from real life. He
emphasizes its nature of communication: "Lifelike art's message is sent on
a feedback loop: from artist to us and around again to the artist...
28
'conversation' is the very means of lifelike art, which is always changing"
(Kaprow
2003).
Such conversation opens up new opportunities for artists
to interact with audiences.
I believe technology can be transformed into a way for the
audience to put themselves in perspective of artists and for the artists to
revisit their thought process from a viewer's perspective. Similarly but as a
contrary, I was interested in expanding technology and the artwork
created upon to empower my audience to become an active creator rather
than a passive viewer.
Until recently, much of the emphasis on technology indicates
digital innovations such as ubiquitous computing and augmented reality
that will help us face the pressing challenges of communication. However,
at the core of a more integrated, life-centered understanding
of
communication is the fluid relationship between the audience and the
creator. In the context of art, this interaction occurs between viewers and
artists. Technology, pen and paper, and the new platforms presented in
the following chapters of this thesis, again are the vehicles of creation.
Artists and viewers converse through them. How would this change the
audience engagement and interaction?
As opposed to still painting on the wall, I was interested in the
interactivity between the artwork and the audience, as well as in that
between the audience and the artist mediated through the artwork. This
thesis introduces new affordances for pens that become an interface to
29
not only transcend the boundaries of paper but also to explore the impact
on audience engagement and on the shift of their perspectives from being
passive viewers to active creators. With suitable interfaces provided,
would audiences perceive a piece of drawing from the artist's perspective?
This cross-boundary experience invites both the artists and audiences to
reveal the process of creation. This new interactivity can inspire both
artists and audiences to have a conversation mediated by the artwork and
offer a new channel to engage. This thesis offers opportunities to sustain
audience interest ad engagement as they become aware that creative
expressionists can be made through dynamic interactions.
1.2
Scope of the Research
This thesis explores opportunities to leverage the benefits that pens
and paper can provide, and to expand their affordances for creators and
audiences alike, enabling them to create, share, and interact with their
work beyond the boundaries of paper. New issues arise concerning how
the pen mediates interactions across the surface of creation and the
surface of attention. We must consider how to intuitively transfer content
from paper to intended digital surfaces across time, location, and
physical-digital boundaries. This thesis contributes to the design and
development of new media leveraging the power of physical pen and
paper to cross the physical and digital realms without switching devices.
With this in mind, when content on private surface of creation transfers
to the public surface of attention, we must also consider crossing the
30
private-social realms by allowing only specific portions to be shared while
the interactions remain with the same device. Furthermore, this thesis
serves a medium that empowers passive viewers to become active
creators, and engage artists and audiences. To address these issues, this
research explores the following:
Designing interactions that cross the physical and digital
realms, using a pen: This thesis presents the design and implementation
of interactions that exploit the affordance of pens and portability of paper
to a) support physical content creation and b) transfer it to intended
surfaces at the time of the user's choosing. In addition to interactions with
digital surfaces in the immediate environment, this thesis also considers
applications in remote interactions using pen and paper, allowing physical
content creation and sharing at a distance without switching devices.
Dynamic interaction across time: This research considers the
representation of time on the physical page. It presents new ways to cross
the boundaries of time by transforming static drawings on paper into
animated facsimiles. This thesis explores new gesture interactions with
the goal of effectively and intuitively enabling such animations to reflect
the process of creativity as a function of time. Furthermore, the dynamic
interaction across time creates new opportunities for asynchronous
communication.
Selective Sharing: How can the use of a pen be leveraged to share
only specific content while hiding the private notes on the same piece of
31
paper? How can static written content be presented in a dynamic order?
This research presents a strategy to selectively share paper content
through gestures, while maintaining privacy during the creative process.
Impacts on audience engagement and the shifts from passive
viewers to active creators: This thesis presents a new interactive
medium that leverages pen and paper through a series of gesture
interactions. Furthermore, it presents the real-world deployment of this
work beyond laboratory development. In order to explore how creators
interact with their own work and with the viewers through their creations,
this thesis takes a particular interest in artistic creation and expression. By
deploying the work as an interactive art exhibition in a contemporary art
museum, this thesis adds a new scope to the gesture interactions in the
real world and explores its impact on how people do creative work. Would
the gesture embodiment engage artists and audiences alike to revisit the
creation process of an artwork? Would the new time-based interactions
allow the audience to take the artist's perspective and vice versa? Would
these new interactions that transcend the boundaries of paper empower
people to shift from being passive viewers to active creators? Further
issues related to how artistic expression and participatory experience are
investigated.
This research explores the potential of embedding computation
and communications technology in a wide variety of applications-from
collaborative workspace to participatory art experiences. In light of the
32
interactive nature of the systems, this research investigates issues related
to creative process and usability, as well as maintaining privacy during the
creation process.
1.3 Structure of the Dissertation
The dissertation is structured as follows. Chapter i introduces the
motivation of the work, followed by the scope of the research. It outlines
the four primary issues in exploring the design philosophy of interest.
Chapter
2
reviews the literature, and its subsections cover the related
issues. It summarizes existing systems that are closely relevant to these
areas and presents the challenges of the design space.
Chapter 3, Chapter 4, and Chapter 5 cover the core design space of
interest, the technical implementation and potential applications. Chapter
3 presents the new interactions using a pen to cross the physical and
digital realms. It discusses the design considerations that lead to the
design and implementation of the gesture-sensing pen, entitled FlickInk.
The design metaphors, iterations, challenges, technical solutions and
prototype implementation process are illustrated. In addition, this
chapter describes the limitation and potential applications in interacting
with surfaces on surrounding objects and in remote interactions.
Chapter 4 shifts the focus into interactions across time. It covers
the scope of dynamic interactions that are typically unavailable with pen
and paper. This chapter presents MoveInk, a system and platform that
33
enable a user's static drawing on paper to become an animated digital
creation. The design of interactions, implementation, challenges and
applications are illuminated.
The previous two chapters serve as a foundation for the design of
"Selective Sharing" functionality. Selective Sharing is another core element
in this research that explores the privacy considerations in content
creation and sharing. Chapter 5 provides in-depth illustrations of the
motivations, the interaction design, and the system implementation for
Selective Sharing.
Chapter 6 describes the evaluation of the above systems. It covers
the designs of the usability study in three sessions and the procedure of
the study. The questionnaires for each of the sessions in the design of the
usability study and the approval from the Committee on the Use of
Humans as Experimental Subjects (COUHES) are included in the
Appendices. The findings from the evaluation study are presented in
chapter 7. Issues relating to creative process, sharing privacy, and usability
are discussed based on the results from the usability study. Chapter 8
presents the real-world deployment of MoveInk in a contemporary art
museum. It describes the process of designing the museum exhibition and
carrying it out in museum gallery oversea. The chapter describes how the
exhibition brought the work from a laboratory setting into real-life
interactions. This chapter further investigates the potential of the
dynamic interactions using MoveInk pen and paper as a function of time
34
in artistic expression. It also opens a door to explore the relationship
between the audience and the artists. Chapter 9 concludes this work and
points to directions for potential application areas and future research
opportunities.
35
36
Chapter 2
Background
2.1
Why Pen and Paper
Recent research has recognized the benefits that sketches with pen
and paper provide: pen and paper are easy to use, they facilitate
face-to-face communication, and they can be quickly arranged in physical
space (Cook and Bailey
2005;
Gladwell
2002;
Sellen and Harper
2003).
Traditional pen and paper continue to be widely used as one of the most
37
popular means to create because their the intuitive feedback embedded in
our cognitive and muscle memories (Goel
1995).
Recent studies also show
that users have held on to pen and paper interfaces, despite powerful
incentives to adopt electronic replacements (Mackay and Fayard
Weibel et al.
1999;
2011).
Fundamentally different than our thought processes required in
the digital world, sketching, especially with pen and paper, entails the
quality of being ambiguous and amorphous. As a contrary, it is expected
to be precise, rigid, discrete, and unambiguous in the digital world (Haller
et al.
2010).
The ambiguity that sketching provides encourages the
designer to explore more ideas without being burdened by concern for
making errors or being constrained by precision in details. Leaving a
sketch at this ambiguous, amorphous stage and having it not interpreted
is crucial to preserving such creativity in design (Hearst 1998).
Furthermore, researchers have observed and compared designers
solving design problems by sketching on paper and by using a
computer-based drawing program. The results showed that "when the
designers generated a new idea in a freehand sketch, they quickly
followed it with several variations. But those who used a drawing program
tended to focus more on refining the initial design, without generating
design variations" (Goel
1995).
Comparing to using digital tools, sketching
with pen and paper has unique advantages in our cognitive process to
38
create, which may impact on design thinking and engender new
variations of creation (Gross and Do 1996; Haller et al.
2010).
Beyond individual design and creative tasks, researchers also
identify the importance of pen and paper in collaboration-intensive work.
Examples can be found in various situations, such as paper flight strips
used in air traffic control (MacKay
trading (Heath et al.
1994);
1999);
physical tickets in financial
medical record for primary health care (Heath
and Luff 1996); and the documents in professional law offices (Suchman
1999). Despite the prevalence of digital technologies and the attempt to
reform traditional work practice and procedure, pen and paper remains
an irreplaceable feature of work and collaboration.
2.2
Systems Integrating Pen and Paper with the
Digital World
There is a large body of research on systems that incorporate the
use of pen and paper with the electronic world. The DigitalDesk is one of
the earliest endeavors to integrate paper documents with digital interfaces
(Wellner
1993).
The system utilizes at least one overhead camera and a
projector mounted above a desk. The camera tracks the positions of paper
and
the
user's
finger.
The
overhead
projection
superimposes
computer-generated images onto paper documents. Through video-based
finger tracking, the system allows users to copy printed content on paper
and paste to the projected area. The system successfully integrates paper
39
content with the electronic interface using bare fingers. However, it does
not support real-time content creation with a pen. In addition, it
introduces new challenges with respect to user's behavior. One problem
with such desk-based touch screens is that users tend to rest their hands
on them and everything touched can be interpreted as input. In addition,
a bare finger is too thick to indicate small objects. Further design
considerations are discussed in section
3.2.
Various other interfaces have been proposed and developed to
incorporate real-time input from pen and paper using a tabletop-based
setting. For example, the Shared Design Space uses digital pen to allow
participants to annotate both physical printout and digital data in a
collaborative tabletop environment for brainstorming and meetings
(Haller et al.
2006).
The Nice Discussion Room extends the use of pen and
paper from tabletop interfaces to whiteboards in the meeting room
(Haller et al.
2010).
VoodooSketch uses pens and conductive paper to
create functions for tabletop interfaces, such as by drawing sliders or
buttons on palettes and attaching them to existing applications (Block et
al. 2008).
Paper interfaces have also been developed for speech and audio
interactions such as VocieNotes (Stifelman and Arons
notebook (Stifelman, Arons, and Schmandt
2001).
1993)
and the audio
Recent advances such
as the NiCEBook which supports natural note-taking and audio recording
using a digital pen (Brandl, Richter, and Haller
40
2010).
Besides
tabletop
interfaces
or
notebook
interfaces,
other
researchers explore physical pen and paper platforms that are associated
with physical objects in the environment, such as the use of sticky notes.
For example, Quickies utilizes ink recognition technologies to digitize
handwriting on sticky notes and provide timely information while making
the sticky notes searchable (Mistry and Maes
2008).
The above studies
further indicate the importance of using analog pen and paper for content
creation and the attempt to integrate it with the digital world.
The majority of these systems digitize the pen ink using the Anoto
system.2 The Anoto system combines a digital camera and an ordinary
ink pen. The pen works by recognizing the dot patterns on Anoto special
paper, hence these systems do not accommodate the use of regular paper
(Signer
2005).
The Anoto system is used for the commercial products such
as Livescribe Smartpen.3 It consists of an embedded computing unit and a
digital audio recorder. The Livescribe system records what the Smartpen
writes on Anoto paper, and allows users to upload the digitized writing
and audio recording to a computer later and to synchronize the digital
notes with the audio data.
Various other commercial products have been made available such
as APen,4 IRISNotes, 5 and Inkling.6 These systems focus on capturing the
handwriting and digitizing the analog strokes. Such position-based digital
2,3,4,5,6
For more information about these commercial products, please refer to their
corporate websites.
41
pens use a receiver that attaches to paper. The sensor detects the location
of the pen tip during writing. These commercially available digital pens
can be applied in the systems discussed in this thesis.
2.3
Interaction across Space and Time
Among the interfaces developed that incorporate pen and paper for
information sharing, the majority considers the interaction across physical
and digital objects in a local space as mentioned in section
2.2.
Recent
studies have started to consider the interaction across spaces or across
time.
Given the increasing
demand in remote collaboration and
communication, researchers propose various approaches to integrate pen
and paper in remote interaction. Designer's Outpost enables a distributed
design team to explore information architectures by linking physical
post-it notes to a shared electronic representation with remote teams
(Everitt et al.
2003;
Klemmer et al.
2001).
A front camera is used to digitize
the handwriting on the post-it notes pasted on the Designer's Outpost
board. A back camera tracks the position of the post-it notes. The digital
representation of the notes and virtual lines indicating the relationship
among them are displayed on the remote board. Other researchers focus
on remote whiteboard interactions. Synchronized Distributed Sketching
integrates pen and paper technologies within a whiteboard-based digital
remote
sketching
tool (Guo,
Zhang,
42
and
Cui
2007).
Tele-Board
incorporates a digital whiteboard and sticky note software tool for remote
collaboration on a whiteboard (Gumienny and Gericke
2013).
PaperSketch
focuses on digitizing handwriting or drawing in real time to allow remote
users to sketch on paper simultaneously (Weibel et al.
2011).
Their analysis
on sketching activities in working environment are important to remote
participation, which further highlights the requirement of natural pen and
paper
interactions
to
support
synchronous
and
asynchronous
communication in both remote and local settings.
Pen and paper-based interactions in the temporal context, however,
has received relatively less attention comparing to that in the spatial
context. The majority of research in this domain focuses on using
sketch-based techniques for making computer animation. New interfaces
incorporating pen and paper sketches are found to be valuable in defining
and modify motion trajectories for computer animation (Baecker 1969;
Davis, Colwell, and Landay
2008).
Other researchers focus on using
sketched trajectories as a pre-defined basis in editing visual properties
(Santosa and Chevalier
2013).
As opposed to sketch with physical pen and
paper, other sketch-based interactions involve motion-based interactions.
For example, I/O Brush picks up colors and textures of objects in the
immediate environment and uses them as the ink to paint on digital
surfaces. The digital drawings reflect the motion at the time when the
Brush captures the features of the object (Ryokai, Marti, and Ishii
43
2004).
In addition, pen and paper interactions are explored to support
collaboration and version control. For example,
MemTable is an
interactive tabletop system that captures information from co-located
meeting and supports asynchronous search in order to review past
meetings (Hunter et al.
as integrating
2011).
Incorporating other input mechanisms, such
voice input with paper interfaces,
VocieNotes and
commercial product LiveScribe allow users to play back audio recordings
as the pen points at corresponding notes (Stifelman et al.
and Arons
2001;
Stifelman
1993).
While this thesis research does not aim to focus on interfaces for
producing computer animation or for version control, it shared the
common ground with the above studies which demonstrated compelling
interfaces that enable the creation of artistic expression or collaboration
in the time domain.
2.4
Creation and Sharing Privacy
Content generated with pen and paper, whether it is for note
taking or for creative activities, generally contains private content that
users wish to keep within their notebook as well as sharable content that
users are willing to show to others. Both kinds of content may exist in its
own way on the same piece of paper. However, only the author knows
what to share and what should be kept private. It has been identified to be
an important but challenging problem to distinguish the public content
44
from the private one (Brandl et al.
al.
2007).
2010;
Hinckley and Ramos
2004;
Liao et
With traditional pen and paper interactions, it requires users to
copy and extract pages or to reproduce the existing content in order to
share it with others. Other approaches require the author to give viewers
access to their pages, which affects the owner's privacy (Brandl et al.
2010).
Similar privacy issues are discussed in systems such as Stitching (Hinckley
and Ramos
2004).
Various approaches are proposed to address the need in creating
with pen and paper while sharing the content without affecting privacy.
PaperCP focuses on students' note-taking and sharing in collocated
classroom settings (Liao et al.
2007).
It predefines a "public" area and a
"private" area on a student's Anoto-based paper. Only the notes written in
the predefined public area on paper can be shared with other class
members via a display screen. Such "spatial differentiation" strategy is also
seen in SharedNotes (Greenberg, Boyle, and LaBerge
1999).
However, later
findings also show that such solution "prevents users from writing
personal comments near pertinent information in the public area."
Furthermore, same researchers later pointed out that, with this
approach, users must "determine a priori what to submit and what not to
submit, which is not compatible with the typical user experience" (Liao
2009).
The same a prioridecision problem occurs with the "pen-switching"
strategy, which requires users to switch between a private pen and a
public pen. This approach, though provide a solution, is an unnatural
45
interaction since users can find it difficult to decide what to share and
what to keep private at the stage when the content is not yet generated.
Different from the "spatial differentiation" strategy, CoScribe
provides a button-based strategy (Steimle, Brdiczka, and Muhlhauser
2009).
It differentiates private and public notes by consecutively tapping
with the pen on the corresponding buttons and the note. This requires
pre-printed buttons, which are implemented with Anoto paper but users
cannot use any other paper. Besides, the tapping does not leave visible
mark on paper for the users to know what content has been associated
with which button. In terms of the interactions, the following section
describes the use of pen gestures and compares the interactions with the
use button clicks and other input mechanisms.
2-5
Sketching and Gesture Interactions
Sketching and gesturing with a pen are recognized as the two
valuable major components for artistic and creative design tasks (Gross
and Do 1996; Michael Moyle and Cockburn
2002).
Gesturing and pointing
are also known to improve communication and convey workspace
awareness to support collaborative work (Gutwin and Greenberg
Ishii
2002;
1990).
When it refers to pen gestures, some researchers mean movements
performed directly on the surface of digital screens with a digital pen or
with a stylus, while others mean wand interactions in three-dimensional
46
environments. Pen gesture input has been used for a wide range of
applications such as air traffic control (Chatty and Lecoanet 1996) and
interactive surfaces for editing graphics and diagrams (Frisch, Heydekorn,
and Dachselt
2009).
Recent studies expand pen gestures from digital
surfaces to physical paper by using a digital pen to draw gesture marks on
a physical printout. The gestural marks on paper are recorded, interpreted,
and applied to the corresponding digital document (Liao
2009).
Other
researchers employ the pen gesture commands on paper and apply the
interactions in different areas such as for interactive learning in classroom
settings (Liao et al.
2007)
notes on paper (Yeh et al.
and for field biologists to organize and collect
2006).
With the increasing popularity and advanced technology of digital
displays, many researchers recognized the advantages of multi-display
environments including the use of projections, monitors, touchscreens,
and mobile devices. A wide range of solutions has been proposed to
transfer content across different devices. Researchers consider gesture
interactions in multiple-display environments (Ballendat, Marquardt, and
Greenberg
2010).
Particular gestures such as tossing and rotating motions
are explored to transfer content with one hand between mobile devices
and large displays (Hassan et al.
2009).
Besides gesturing with mobile
devices, pen-based gestures have also been leveraged to facilitate the
transfer of images across multiple displays. For example, Stitching uses
stylus pens to span across adjacent mobile displays (Hinckley and Ramos
47
2004).
Other gestures such as the use of a pen to initiate remote pointing
have been used for device selection (Swindells et al.
2002).
These
approaches focus on gesture interactions that allow users to transfer
content across digital displays.
Further
studies
compare
pen
gestures
with
other
input
mechanisms such as mouse input, button clicks, and keyboard shortcuts.
The results show that using gestures can significantly reduce the time
taken to perform simple commands (M Moyle and Cockburn
2002).
A
comprehensive evaluation that compares different input devices for a 3 D
environment including voice input, graphical and touch interfaces, and
wand interface (Dang et al.
2009).
The results further indicate that wand
gestural interface supported better performance in terms of accuracy,
effectiveness, and user experience among all the mechanisms.
48
Chapter 3
Pen-based Interactions that Cross
the Physical and Digital Realms
3.1 Purpose
Drawing with pen and paper provides tangible feedback that is very
different than drawing with a computer mouse or on digital pads. The
inherent physical properties make it hard to replace traditional pen and
paper with digital alternatives. Grasping a pen, feeling the tip hitting the
paper as one's thoughts flow through their fingers creates cognitive
feedback. Such feedback can be an integral part of the creative process.
49
Handwriting and hand-drawing not only provide an intuitive way to
express ideas, they can often reveal information about the author's
thought process at the moment of the creation.
In addition, creating with pen and paper is personalized: the style
of hand drawing and handwriting is specific to each individual and can
hardly be replaced by computer; the choice of notebooks, the texture of
paper, and the preference of pen can influence an individual's creation. It
is also widely accessible, portable, and much more low-cost than
computers.
As graffiti artist Keith Haring pointed out, "Drawing is still
basically the same as it has been since prehistoric times. It brings together
man and the world. It lives through magic," However, we now live in a
world that is very different than the ancient times. We are surrounded by
more and more digital screens that make us more susceptible to passive
viewership. What if we could take the best out of the two worlds,
integrating the benefit of traditional pen and paper and the ubiquity of
digital displays to enable us to create, express, and communicate?
This thesis explores new affordances for pens that become an
interface to transcend the boundaries of paper. This chapter focuses on
interfacing with the immediate physical spaces in real-time. The goal is to
enable interactions that allow the users to share their content on paper as
their attention shifts from the surface of creation to the surface of
attention. The interactions and the system presented in this chapter were
50
designed in the way that addressed the design considerations in the
following sections.
Section 3.2 presents the challenges and the design considerations
towards intuitive interactions using pen and paper to create and interface
with digital displays. Section 3.3 presents the design of the interactions
that allow users to transfer content created on paper to an intended
surface in the surrounding environment. Section 3.4 describes the system
design and implementation. Section 3.5 discusses potential applications
including augmenting the surfaces of physical objects and remote
interactions.
3.2 Design Considerations
The majority of existing systems use overhead cameras and
projectors to integrate pen and paper with digital interfaces. Other
approaches involve special tabletop settings. Although these approaches
successfully integrate the use of paper with computers, the most
important thing to take into account is the user's behaviors.
While using pen and paper with these systems, a number of issues
can arise. For the systems using a camera-based approach, touching or
holding the paper can interfere with the computer system by generating
unwanted shadows. Users normally rest their hands or arms on tables,
which can also create false input. This is called Midas Effect (Wellner
1993).
To avoid Midas effect in such systems, users are required to change
51
their habit in using pen and paper at a table. For example, they have to
constantly avoid covering their fingers with paper or other body part, and
avoid touching the table besides making a gesture. In this thesis, we set
out to design an interface to not only intuitively enable new interactions
to happen but also to incorporate users' original behavior at a table.
As discussed in Chapter
2,
these systems allow users to use pen and
paper only in special rooms that have particular setup of cameras,
projectors, or tabletop equipment. However, one of the advantages of
using pen and paper is its portability. The room-based or tabletop-based
interactions provide benefit for group interactions, but they restrict the
use of pen and paper within specific areas in such rooms, using particular
equipment. In addition, since the interactions are constrained to be in
specific local rooms, they do not support remote communication.
Besides, camera-based and tabletop projection-based
platforms
require specific lighting condition, which may conflict with the lighting
required for using pen and paper. The shadows from users' hands and
pens can also interfere with the system. To address these problems, we
must consider how to design a camera-free, portable system to allow
people to freely use pen and paper without being restricted.
Furthermore, given the variety of commercial products that focus
on digitizing the pen input, the majority of the existing solutions use
Anoto system that requires special patterned paper. However, the ideal
interactions should accommodate the convenience and personalized
52
experience, i.e., to allow people to use any paper in hand or to choose their
personal notebook rather than using specific paper. With regard to
creating personalized
and
intuitive experience,
the challenges
in
maintaining privacy during content creation and sharing are yet to be
addressed as discussed in section
2.4.
Design Considerations
-
Lighting & shadows
Camera-free & portable
- "Midas Effect"
-
Special paper
-
Private content not
Intuitive interactions
EI~
the creative and sharing
process
- Engaging viewers to create,
- Enabling viewers to capture
express and share as active
contributors
and receive digitized pen
input
1.
Any paper
- Maintaining privacy during
distinguished from sharable
content
Figure
-
Design considerations for pen-based interactions that cross the physical
and digital realms.
The primary design considerations are summarized in Figure i. As
we integrate the benefit of using pen and paper and the digital displays,
we must consider what makes an intuitive interaction when crossing the
physical and digital interfaces without having to switch devices. In
addition, we must also consider how the interactions may mediate and
53
change interactions between the author and the audience. How can we
effectively incorporate the use of pens, rather than interacting with
computers, to shift our center of focus from the computers to the physical
presence and to mediate communication? How can the system be
designed to maintain the advantages of using pen and paper, such as its
tactile feedback, the portability, and the ease of access? What interactions
can smoothly expand the content to go beyond the boundary of paper,
entering the surrounding environment? How to design a system that is
functional, low cost, and easy to install? This thesis focuses on creating the
interactions to engage people to create, express, and share as an active
contributor, rather than digitizing the pen stroke for people to passively
receive and capture information only. In designing intuitive interactions
with a pen, this thesis addresses the above issues.
3.3 Interactions
This chapter explores new affordances for pens that they become
an interface to transfer physical content onto desired surfaces. Existing
digital sketching systems that allow input from paper usually require
setups such as overhead cameras, particular tabletops or special patterned
paper. To leverage the portability and ease of using pen and paper, the
platforms presented in this section are compatible with any paper, from
users' preferred notebooks to a piece of napkin in hand, and have no
spatial restriction as there is no camera required in the system. We
54
developed the platform, FlickInk, a system that addresses the above issues
through gesture interactions (Pao, Reben, and Larson 2012).
Figure
2.
Flicklnk interaction.
To do so, we designed the following interactions: with a quick flick
of the pen towards a desired destination, the user's creation was instantly
transferred from paper onto the targeting physical object in the
surrounding environment. The interactions allowed users to transfer
pen-based physical content onto surrounding surfaces at the time of the
user's choosing. Figure
2
illustrates the interactions. Figure 3 shows users
using the Flicklnk pen. An individual drew with the FlickInk pen on paper,
which can be a personal notebook or any paper. A flicking gesture was
achieved when a user grasped the pen and swung it. Users can flick the
pen toward their selected surface, and thus transfer the written content
55
from the physical paper (Figure 3 A) to the target surface (Figure 3 C). This
flick gesture was a metaphor of making desired content appear with a
magic wand-like action, as a magic wand is commonly known to create
instant visual surprise and the action is often directional.
56
--
Figure 3. Using the Flicklnk pen, user creates content on paper (Figure
3 A). By flicking the pen towards the target surface, in this case, the
canvas on the wall (Figure 3 B), the drawing on paper is transferred onto
the surface (Figure 3 C).
57
3.4 System Design
Figure 4 demonstrates the proof of concept prototype.7 This initial
prototype gave us insights about transforming a pen into an interactive
interface. Flicking the pen instantly transferred analog ink to a surface in
the physical environment. This first prototype was accomplished through
wired connection to transfer data from the pen to the base station. Using
the flicking gesture with the pen (Figure 4 B), physical content on paper
was instantly transferred to the target digital surface (Figure 4 C).
The wires coming out from the pen served two primary purposes:
first, they transmitted data from the pen to the base station. In addition,
they distributed power to the gesture sensing components on the pen.
Besides the wires, all the components in this prototype were mounted
directly on the surface of the pen. However, the wires introduced
unwanted constraint, which especially interfered with pen gesturing. To
solve this problem, we implemented the next version, the wireless
FlickInk.
7
This first prototype was developed under the collaboration with Cisco System Inc.
58
Figure 4. The first proof of concept prototype
(with wired connection) allowed analog ink
to be transferred to surrounding digital
interfaces through a flicking gesture.
59
Figure 5. The wireless Flicklnk prototype.
Evolving from the proof-of-concept prototype (Figure 4), I
designed and developed the wireless FlickInk (Figure 5). The design and
implementation of the wireless FlickInk addressed the above challenges.
The FlickInk gesture-sensing module contained all of the sensing
and processing to detect the pen gestures, allowing for wireless
communication and directional gesture sensing. It was designed and built
as a module detachable from a pen, which made it compatible with
various off the shelf encoding pens (Figure 6). The threshold was set in
such a way as to eliminate false readings. If a flick or other gesture was
detected,
the
microcontroller
then
modulated
the
wireless
communication to send a unique ID along with gesture data to the base
station sensor. Hence, the base stations identified which pen was pointed
at them in line-of-sight. The tradeoff of removing all the wires that
6o
connect the pen to the base station was to increase the number of
components to be mounted on the pen. New components were required
in order to achieve wireless data transmission, to supply power, and to
enable the functions with the pen to operate on their own. Considering all
these components increased the design complexity. Another challenge in
this wireless Flicklnk prototype was to consider the mechanisms of
mounting all these components onto the pen given the limited surface
area and the shape of pens.
Gesture sensing module
Chargng port
ment adjustment
Digital
encoding pen
.Wreless communication
Figure 6. The wireless gesture sensing module that can be attached to a
pen cap so as to be compatible with any generic digital encoding pen.
The base station consisted of a microcontroller connected to the
wireless signal receiver. The microcontroller read the receiver and waited
for incoming codes. When a code was received, it was processed and the
information was sent through USB to the computer. The computer
61
identified the code with customized software, with which the threshold
was set in such a way as to eliminate false readings.
X-Y
Base Station
position
1. Micro-
Geste sefang moule
controller
2. Computer
graphics
algorithm
igital
""""" P.
1.Gesture
recognition
2. Filtering
3. Pen recognition
Gesture
miout reeleer
performed 'odut wr s
SRcRendering
img;
Assigning color
signaii
Iarget
Surface
Figure 7. The Flicklnk software components.
I designed and developed a graphic algorithm and software, which
rendered the images created by the users on paper and projected them
onto the corresponding surface. This was achieved through the costumed
algorithm illustrated in Figure 7. Gesturing at surrounding environments
with the pen enabled content to appear on the target digital display or to
superimpose it onto the intended physical objects through projection. The
detection of a gesture was through wireless IR signal that was encoded
62
with a unique ID. Each unique ID was specific to one FlickInk module.
This allowed multiple users or multiple pens to interact at the same time.
Furthermore, not only because the flicking gesture itself was
directional, but because the IR transmitter was implemented in the way
that it was mounted on the tip of the gesture sensing module which
would be pointing at the targeting surface when the gestures were
performed, this allowed users to select the target surface to transfer their
content to. As the IR receiver received the signal, the connected surface
would display the content. The system allowed users to easily enable a
selected display, such as a digital screen or projection area, to become a
target surface for FlickInk by mounting the receiver near the target
surface area. If multiple surfaces are available, the direction of the pen
swing determines which screen the information is transferred to.
3-5 Applications
3-5.1 Augmenting remote surfaces
Using pen and paper, the content created on physical paper can be
directly presented and expressed to its audience as long as they are
collocated in the same physical environment. However, if the audience is
remote, it can be cumbersome when it comes to sharing and presenting
the work on physical paper.
Advances in technology have enabled us to instantly interact with
each other across geographical boundaries in the digital domains. While
63
the majority of prior work focuses on improving the video and audio
qualities for teleconferences, we developed a new platform, namely
augmentedparticipatorydesign, for remote communication using pen and
paper to share and present visual content (Pao and Larson
Figure 8 illustrates the platform, with
2013).
particular focus
on
integrating analog tools into a design activity. For example, when a local
designer used this platform, she sketched out the ideas on paper using the
Flicklnk pen (Figure 8B). The local designer was communicating with her
colleague via videoconference. They were working on a new design using
Lego models. However, the Lego model was in the remote site and she did
not have physical access to it. In this situation, she used the FlickInk pen
to draw out her design on the printout of the screen. Once she was ready,
she flicked the pen towards the screen and thus augmented the remote
Lego model with her sketch (Figure 8C). Upon the flick, her sketch on
paper instantly appeared on the remote Lego model, indicating the shape
and position. Her collaborator saw her design showing on the surface of
the Lego model, which allowed him to quickly understand the ideas and
modify the physical objects accordingly and remotely (Figure 8D).
The augmented participatorydesign platform can be applied in all
kinds
of
remote
collaboration
situations
especially
when
visual
representation of ideas is beneficial to effective communication. Flicklnk
enables users to augment inaccessible remote objects with their own
64
creation to provide a wealth of digital information and communication
capabilities for distant collaborators.
Figure 8. Augmented remote reality. (A) Local designer uses FlickInk pen
to collaborate with her colleague on Lego model, via videoconference.
(B) FlickInk system captures her gestures and sketches on paper.
(C) Flicking pen instantly transfers paper sketch to remote model.
(D) Remote collaborator creates new physical prototypes accordingly.
This platform leverages videos and cameras in a teleconference to
register remote real-world objects and precisely match the corresponding
real-time content generated with pen and paper. In the current prototype,
a printout of the screen view of the physical prototype was used for the
local designer to sketch on. This offered the convenience to directly
register and match the position between the sketch and the remote object.
The limitation included the following: recalibration or reposition was
65
-.
I.E
~
-~
required if the camera view of the remote physical object in the
videoconference was different from the paper view. In this case, users may
incorporate the use of a mouse to reposition the sketches on the
teleconference screen.
3-5.2 Augmenting local objects
FlickInk integrates the traditional pen-and-paper interface to
enable an interactive expressive environment, by creating a perception
that the content is instantly transferred from the familiar analog world of
paper into the physical object. Figure 9 demonstrates a user annotate a
design prototype without permanently leaving a mark on them.
Figure 9. Tapping the pen on co-located physical objects allows for
augmented annotation of the physical model with real-time written
content.
This was accomplished through the FlickInk system with its recent
development in wireless sensing capability, augmented reality, MIT
CityScope's parametric
3D
computer models with projection on Lego
models. We developed wireless sensing technologies and computer
graphics algorithms, with the goal of augmenting objects, both in the
66
immediate environment and in remote locations, to provide a wealth of
digital information and communication capabilities. The augmented
participatorydesign platform may open a door to future augmented reality
that integrates user-generated content creation (Pao and Larson
2013).
3-5.3 Limitations
Flicklnk enables users to instantly transfer their drawings on paper
to surrounding surfaces, including projections on whiteboards, at the time
of their choosing. As a result, users can instantly create with pen and
paper and share on a variety of digital surfaces, including projections,
screens, and digital whiteboards, with a quick flick. However, in some
situations, positioning the shared content on whiteboard is important.
However, Flicklnk is not intended to reposition this visual content that
emerges from these gestures to a designated spot on the selected surface.
Rather, it is for individual users to quickly transfer content from paper to
a desired surface in the space.
Working with Cisco WebEx initially inspired me to look at the use
of whiteboards for interactions and collaboration. To allow users to
position the shared content on the whiteboard, I developed another
project, Point and Share, with Gonglue Jiang, Misha Sra and Austin Lee as
one of our class projects in the Tangible Media class, initiated and
developed a few months after my collaboration with Cisco on Flicklnk.
Although this class project, Point and Share, also involved the use of pen
and paper, it is distinct from Flicklnk in its purpose and methodologies.
67
Point and Share is designed specifically for whiteboard interaction. Acting
as a pointer, Point and Share involves pressing a button we mounted on
the pen and pointing the pen at the desired spot on the whiteboard. This
interaction positions paper content on whiteboards. Holding the button
allows users to move the content to a desired position on a whiteboard.
Sliding another button controls the zoom, changing the size of the shared
content as the position is adjusted. Since the interaction and purposes are
different
than
FlickInk,
the
implementation
is
different
and
is
independent from Flicklnk. Point and Share uses two Wiimotes as sensors
to identify pointing location. The computer codes were modified from an
open source project developed by Johny Lee. 8 Flicklnk does not use a
Wiimote and its hardware and software systems are implemented and
developed
from
scratch.
These
two
projects,
though
designed
independently using different technologies, may have the potential to be
combined in the future.
Wiimote Whiteboard: http://johnnylee.net/projects/wii/
68
Chapter 4
Dynamic Interaction across Time
4.1 Purpose
Drawing is often used to express ideas and explain thoughts. The
process of forming a drawing is rich of temporal information. It is full of
thoughts, actions, and decisions. In situations such as brainstorming,
storytelling, or design activities, with a group or as an individual, drawings
facilitate communication because it is happening in real-time.
However, upon the completion of a drawing, it immediately
becomes static, still, and inactive. What if there was a way to past present
69
and future, and allow us to experience the stories imbedded in the
drawings ourselves and through others? Most of communication channels
have been created to cross the barriers of space. This chapter in the thesis
presents the new interactions with the ability to cross the barriers of time.
4.2 Interactions
With the goal to create intuitive interactions for the representation
of time on the physical page, this section describes the platform, Movelnk,
which addressed the design considerations to transform static drawing
into dynamic interaction in the temporal context.
Figure io. Twisting the pen as turning a knob, a metaphor of time moving,
triggers the animation to play. Twisting clockwise or counterclockwise
directs the animation to play in forward or rewind mode.
70
The Movelnk gestures included the following: Twisting the pen
clockwise triggered the animation to start (Figure io). This gesture
represented design metaphor of turning a knob, moving the clock forward.
The animation reflected the trajectory and speed of the analog ink as it
migrated over the paper back in time. Similarly, twisting the pen
counterclockwise rewound the trajectory animation. As the animation
was played backwards, it removed the lines from the time point when the
gesture was performed. This can serve as a function to erase the projected
lines as well as to dynamically interact with the trajectory animation by
reversing its direction.
The twisting gestures were designed in the way that they were
directional and deliberate - users lift the pen and point the back tip of the
pen towards the intended screen with two consecutive twists, either
clockwise
or
counterclockwise.
The
directional
double
twists
differentiated the gestures from potential movements during the regular
use of the pen when writing or drawing. Using pen and paper, Movelnk
acted simultaneously in physical and virtual realms, transforming a pen
into a gestural wand that converted a user's static drawing on paper to an
animated digital creation.
4-3 Implementation
Although Movelnk and Flicklnk shared the same mechanical
design in terms of their shape and appearance, Movelnk used different
71
hardware components than FlickInk with new sensors including a new
microcontroller and a 3-axis accelerometer in order to capture the
MoveInk gestures. The wireless transmission components stayed the same
as in FlickInk, by mounting an IR LED on the top of the gesture-sensing
module to send signals wirelessly to the IR receiver mounted on an
intended digital display. However, new IR signals were defined to
associate them with MoveInk gestures. The hardware layout in MoveInk
were rearranged to fit the new microcontroller,
sensors, batteries,
charging station, and power switch, into the sensing module in order to
keep the size as small as FlickInk.
In addition,
new
software
components
were
developed
to
implement the interactions. The custom software captured the pen stroke
and recorded them as x-y coordinates as the pen touches the paper. The
software running on the base station not only structured the x-y
coordinates data received from the pen in real-time, it also denoted the
time. Another piece of custom software in the MoveInk system kept track
of the gestures, while at the same time filtering out false positives. When a
clockwise twisting gesture was picked up by the base station, the
computer graphics algorithm then rendered the animation based on the
x-y coordinates, the time point of each pen stroke, and the time point of
the gestures performed.
Some
challenges
occurred
when
implementing
the
counterclockwise gesture. First, the system could easily misinterpret a
72
counterclockwise twisting gesture to be a clockwise twisting gesture. It
was because right after a twisting gesture was performed, the user's wrists
have the tendency to rotate back to the original position. This led to the
redesign of the gestures from single twist to double twists. Twisting the
pen twice consecutively made it a deliberate gesture for the system to
differentiate clockwise twists from counterclockwise ones.
Another challenge was to implement the reverse animation in
real-time because the trajectory animation was rendered at the time when
the gestures were performed. All the gesture interactions and content
created with the pen were interactive in real-time, so the reverse
animation playback also needed to be rendered in real time rather than
simply rewind the animation as a pre-rendered video clip. At the same
time while users performed the gestures and while the animation was
rendered and displayed, they may continue to draw and to gesture more
to dynamically change the animation on the fly. How could the animation
be reversed at the time of the counterclockwise gesture was received,
while users continue to change the drawing? Our solution to this was by
creating an array which tracked the positions of the pixels to be "reversed."
Upon detecting the counterclockwise gesture, for each of the pixels, we
created a new animation but in the background color. This created the
perceptions
that
the
lines
was
erased
from
the
point
when
counterclockwise gesture was detected, i.e., the animation was played
backwards.
73
Furthermore, when multiple pens were used at the same time, the
Movelnk
algorithms differentiated signals from different users by
assigning each pen input with a unique identification code. Each pen was
represented with a specific color. A single user could also draw in different
colors with different pens. When lines from different pens crossed each
other, there would be more than one color overlapping in the same
position. Since the system recorded the time point of each of the pens,
when a clockwise twisting gesture was performed, the sequence of
corresponding colors can be displayed in the animation. Technical
challenges included the following: how to represent the most up-to-date
pen stroke when the counterclockwise gesture was detected in the past?
In particular, when multiple lines crossed, how to correctly "erase" and
"reverse" the animation to show the correct line and color in reverse
sequence without corrupting the rest of the lines? While the animation
was reversed, new pen strokes from users may continued to be generated
at the same time. When there was only one pen was in use, the
counterclockwise twisting was implemented by filling the pixels with the
background color. When there were multiple pens, the
MoveInk
algorithms kept track of the sequences and fill the erased pixels with the
previous pen color instead of the background color, which allowed the
system to precisely animate the trajectories from multiple pens with the
combination of gestures at the same time.
74
4.4 Applications
4.4.1 Interactive visual expression
Though traditionally, the visual arts have not had much of an
interactive esthetics, designing the interactive experience can add an
entire dimension to the aesthetic endeavor. Unlike having a traditional
canvas, MoveInk can offer an interactive visual experience. It does so by
offering real-time feedback at any chosen moment after the artwork is
initially created.
The real-time animation and interactivity presented in this chapter
can take both authors and viewers back to the past when the drawing was
created. The authors can revisit their thought processes and receive
feedback on their own creativity. The viewers can maneuver back into the
creative trajectory of the artists.
Both the viewers and the creators of an artwork have full control of
the pen to create, to animate and to interact across time. This control
gives users (as both and an audience and an artist) the flexibility,
spontaneity, and divergent thinking which can impact the creation
process. Further discussion of MoveInk as an interactive museum
exhibition is presented in Chapter 8.
75
4.4.2
Participatory experience and social engagement
MoveInk allows users to maneuver either their own content
creation or interact with each other's work. The gesture interactions offer
a participatory experience that engages the audience in a process of
interacting with the work as if they traveled back in time to see the work
while the author created it. It also invites the author to revisit his or her
creation process. Therefore,
through paper sketches and gestures,
MoveInk allows animated content to be easily created in a playful and
intuitive way without prior experience in producing computer graphics
and animation.
76
Chapter 5
Sharing and Privacy
5.1 Purpose
Using traditional interfaces such as whiteboards or overhead
projectors with a transparency, an individual develops text or sketches as
other participants of a session observe the process. False starts and errors
are visible to all. To remove this kind of pressure, using traditional
interfaces such as notebook offers a way to protect content in a private
space. As users generate input on their private notebook and share
content in real-time, designing interactions for privacy control becomes
an important consideration. When users are ready to share a final creation,
77
they either present the notebook to others nearby or to scan or copy the
content to send to a remote person, so their viewers can view it. However,
this requires users to share everything on the page even though they may
want to keep certain portion private. Alternatively, users have to engage
in a process to recreate the content in a public domain when they are
ready to share. Switching devices and recreating the content is a time
consuming process, which may often introduce interruptions. Selective
Sharing is developed to protect user's needs of intuitively sharing when
ready and maintaining privacy as they create.
5.2 Interactions
The Selective Sharing gestures are illustrated in Figure ii. By writing
with a pen, any content made on paper was by default private. Holding
down the pen for two seconds turned on the ability to draw a selection
circle around the content that users wish to share. Flicking the pen shared
only the selected content at the time of users choosing. The rest of the
content was kept private (Figure ii). The hold-down gesture was designed
as a metaphor for users to pause and think twice before selecting what to
share. This provided an opportunity for users to review the content before
sharing it. If they decided not to share, users can release the pen before
closing the loop to retain content privacy.
78
Figure ii. Selective Sharing: (A) Any content made on paper is by
default private; (B) Holding down the pen for two seconds to initiate
selection; (C) Making a selection circle around content ready to be
shared; (D) Flicking the pen at a desired display shares the content
exclusively within the selection circle, while the rest of the content
remains private on paper (comparing to A).
5.3 Implementation
To decide whether a stroke should be interpreted as a command or
data input, we designed
and implemented the algorithm, which
differentiated a selection circle from a drawn circle that was part of the
content on the same paper. The selection circle was initiated with a
deliberate gesture by holding down the pen on paper for a couple of
seconds prior to making the circle (Figure liB and Figure iiC). The circle
could be in any shape, as long as it was a closed loop.
79
A sharing gesture was achieved when a user grasped the pen and
swung, which triggered written content on physical paper to instantly
appear on a digital surface that was seen to other collaborators in a
session (Figure uD).
5.4 Applications
Selective Sharing may be used for the sharing of ideas within a
collocated group or for remote collaboration. With Selective Sharing,
content created with pen and paper will not be revealed to any other
viewer until the user flicks the pen towards the intended display. As each
user flicks their content to the screen, it is color-coded. In this way, each
author can see what the other have contributed and can see who added
what.
Users obtain control over their sharing privacy with the freedom to
generate personal creation within a public realm through Selective Sharing.
An individual gets to select what on the notebook to share and what to
keep as private at any moment after the content is created. The
methodology and interactions allow users to quickly share certain content
without incorporating cameras or switching devices.
In addition to maintaining creation privacy as described above,
Selective Sharing can be used creatively to support communication. Users
can select certain content specific to the topic of interest and share it at
the
right time as the conversation
8o
goes.
In
situations
such as
brainstorming, meetings, or classroom discussions, users may also select
content they created in the past, and share them on the shared surface at
the time of their choosing.
81
82
Chapter 6
Evaluation
6.1 Usability Study Design
We designed a series of usability study to evaluate the interactions
and systems presented in Chapter 3, Chapter 4, and Chapter 5. The
purpose of this study was to evaluate the Movelnk system, with particular
emphasis on usability and participation experience. The primary goal was
to observe how users use the system in order to evaluate the functionality
and design of the system. The secondary goal was to explore new
interaction patterns that users might come up with. The study allowed us
83
to collect data through observation and questionnaires. The series of
usability studies are described in the following sessions.
6.1.1 Free content creation and sharing
The first session in this study was a free exploration session to
evaluate the gesture usability in content creation and sharing. The goal of
this session was to evaluate the usability of Movelnk pen to create, share,
and animate content through the following gestures: (1) using the flicking
gesture to instantly transfer analog content on paper to the intended
digital surface in the immediate environment;
(2)
using the clockwise
twisting to transform paper sketches created by users into a dynamic
animated
form on the
selected digital screen; and
(3)
using the
counterclockwise twisting to reverse the animation playback.
In this session of the study, we measured the following
(i) Usability: Were participants able to figure out how to use the
above gestures after receiving the instruction? Did they find the gesture
interactions
intuitive? Did they find the gestures easy or difficult?
Comparing to a regular pen, was it easy to create content using the
Movelnk pen?
(2) Accuracy: How many mistakes or errors happened with the
system when participants intended to use certain gestures to achieve
corresponding goals?
84
(3) Stickiness: How much time does a user spend on using
Movelnk before getting bored?
(4)
Emotional
response:
When
their
paper
sketches
were
transferred from paper to the intended surface in the environment, how
did the users feel about it? Did the user look confident or stressed?
(5) Other: Did users come up with other ways to use the system?
This session began with an instruction video demonstrating the
functions of the MoveInk pen, including writing or sketching on paper
using the pen, flicking the pen towards the digital screen, and twisting the
pen clockwise and counterclockwise. After participants watched the
instruction video, the researchers gave them verbal instruction as follows:
"In this session, you have five minutes to explore the pen and
sketch anything you want. You may use the following three gestures:
flicking, twisting clockwise, and twisting counterclockwise or may freely
use the pen in any way you want. No one will judge the content of your
work. If you have questions, please ask."
Participants were each given five minutes to freely use the pen.
There was no other task required. During the entire duration of this
session, a single participant was in a room to participate in the study. The
researchers might enter the room to answer any questions or to maintain
the cameras when necessary. After the five-minute free exploration period,
85
the participants filled out a questionnaire (Appendix A). The entire
duration of this session was io minutes.
6.1.2
Group interactions
In this session of the study, participants were paired up into groups
of two in order to study the group interactions and collaborative creation
using the MoveInk pen. Each group was taken into a room described in
6.3. They were asked to collaboratively create a drawing with their
partner.
In order to compare the use of the MoveInk pen with a regular pen,
this session was divided into two phases. In phase 1, all the functions on
MoveInk pen were disabled. Participants used the MoveInk pens as
regular pens to sketch and draw. They were provided with one sheet of
blank paper. Each of the participants in the pair was given one pen. The
researcher read the following instruction to them:
"In this session, you will be using regular pens to collaborate on a
sketch. You have three minutes to work together and sketch anything you
want. You may talk with your partner and may use the pen in any way you
would like. We will not judge the content of your work. If you have
questions, please ask."
In the end of this phase, each participant filled out a questionnaire
independently. The questions are listed in appendix B. After they filled
86
out the questionnaire, participants returned to the room. They stayed
with the same partners and were each given the same MoveInk pens.
In this phase, the MoveInk functions were enabled. First, their
collaborative drawing from the previous phase was presented to them on
the same sheet of paper. Next, the researcher read the following
instruction to them:
"In this session, you can use the following three gestures:flicking,
twisting clockwise, and twisting counterclockwise. You have three minutes
to work together and sketch anything you want. You may talk with your
partner and may freely use the pens to interact with your work on the
screen. We will not judge the content of your work. If you have questions,
please ask."
They were asked to use the MoveInk pens to flick the collaborative
work from the previous phase onto the screen, and twist the pens to
animate their work. This allowed them to review their process of the
collaborative work that they created in the previous phase. They were free
to use the pens to interact with this work further or to continue drawing
at any time in this phase.
In the end of this phase, another questionnaire (Appendix C) was
given to each participant in a group to collect their feedback on the group
interactions regarding the use of gestures, participatory experiences, and
perceptions of the work comparing the static paper form and in the
87
animated form. The total length of this session, including the two phases,
was
15
to
20
minutes. In this study we observed how participants used
Movelnk comparing to regular pens. How would they interact with each
other? Would they pay attention to their partners or do they focus only on
their own work? Would viewing the collaboration process impact on their
own creation process or on their creativity? Would these gestures, i.e.,
flicking, twisting, and Selective Sharing, engage their partners during the
process or not? We gathered data from this session to evaluate the system
and explore how the gesture interactions mediate communication and
expression.
6.1.3 Remote interaction using Selective Sharing
This session focuses on the evaluation of Selective Sharing being
used in remote interactions. Selective Sharing was designed to allow users
to create content in their private workspace, i.e., notebook, rather than in
a shared public workspace such as shared screen or whiteboards, and
allow them to share only selected portion with the audience at the time of
their choosing without having to switch devices.
We designed a remote meeting scenario in which the participants
had to produce content under pressure while their boss and clients were
watching. In addition, this scenario created the need for the participants
to take written notes, to make changes in the iterations of their drawings,
to communicate with the boss and clients but to not share unwanted
content such as their work-in-progress doodles or mistakes.
88
In this session, we observed what participants did in order to
deliver only the best final version when the boss requested to review the
work and to present the end product to the clients.
Regular pens and paper are tools people commonly use in meetings.
This session was divided into two phases in order to compare the use of
Selective Sharing with the use of regular pens and paper.
In phase 1, the participants were given a regular pen and paper. By
the end of this phase, participants were unaware of Selective Sharing. In
phase
2,
participants used the MoveInk pen instead. They may use
Selective Sharing whenever they wanted to. In between these two phases,
there was a 5-minute break. During this break, the researchers introduced
the Selective Sharing function to the participants for them to learn about
the gestures and to play with the Selective Sharing function.
Throughout the whole session, one participant participated in the
study at a time. The participants were asked to play the role as a watch
designer working for a company. One of the researchers was connected to
the videoconference as their boss from a remote location. Through the
videoconference, the participant and the boss could see and hear each
other.
The design of these two phases is described as follows. In phase
one, the researcher read the following at the beginning of this phase:
89
"You are a designer, and you are particularly good at designing
watches. You have an emergency videoconference with your boss. You are
given a pen and one sheet of paper to bring to the meeting."
They were pointed to the seat in front of the videoconference
screen that was connected to the boss. They may use the table if they
needed to sketch or write on the paper. The participants may talk to the
boss during the meeting or may start to use the pen at any time. After the
boss and the participant greeted each other, the boss said the following:
"Hi, I'm on the phone with one of our clients, and they just told me
that they need a new watch design. I'm going to tell you the requirements
they want. Please take notes on this and begin sketching your ideas while
I'm talking. Here are the requirements:
Include the company's name: "Chronarchington" (spells out name);
Have a rectangular face;
Must be an analog watch;
Uses roman numerals.
Actually, the company name does not need to be included on the
watch. Let me double check to make sure if there's anything else they
need. In the meantime, please keep sketching. (Pause for 5 seconds.) Okay,
sorry, the client actually wants a circular face for the watch instead. Feel
free to make as many sketches and be as creative as you want, but, in two
90
minutes, I'll be inviting the client to this call. When they come on, please
present only the best design you come up with to impress them. Thanks
so much."
The boss left the teleconference for two minutes. During this time,
we observed how the participants reacted to the boss and how they used
the pen and paper to support the activity. After two minutes, the boss
came back to the videoconference and said:
"Hi again, could you please show me your final design for the
watch before I invite the client?"
We observed how participants showed their work on paper to the
boss. The boss may instruct the participant to show only the best final
work and not display the mistakes or doodles they might have made on
the paper. After that, the boss said:
"Thanks, I'm sharing my screen with the clients now. Please show
us your design. (Pause.) Thank you, I'll be discussing the design with the
client momentarily; I'll be right back."
The boss left the teleconference again. This was the end of phase i.
The researchers entered the room and introduced Selective Sharing to the
participants. Participants played with the MoveInk pens and used the
Selective Sharing function during this time. They may ask questions before
the researchers left the room.
91
In phase
2,
the participants were given the MoveInk pen with the
Selective Sharing function enabled. They were given a new sheet of paper
for this phase of the study. The researchers read this instruction:
"For the rest of the meeting, you'll be using MoveInk pen. The pen
has the same functions that you have previously seen on Movelnk, and it
also has a Selective Sharing option. Selective Sharing lets you circle specific
things that you want to share, so that each time when you flick your pen,
only the content within the circled area shows up on the screen."
The researchers left the room and the boss connected back to the
videoconference. The participant may freely have a conversation with the
boss or may use the Movelnk pen during the entire session. The boss said
the following:
"Hi. The clients want a second watch. I'm going to tell you the new
requirements so please take notes again and begin sketching your ideas as
I talk. These are the requirements:
Have an oval face;
Must be digital;
Must have three buttons.
Let me double check to make sure if there's anything else they
need. In the meantime, please keep sketching. (Pauses for 5 seconds.)
Okay, so the client actually wants a triangular face for the watch instead.
92
Feel free to make as many sketches and be as creative as you want, but, in
two minutes, the client will be invited back to the call. When they come
on, please present only the best design you come up with to impress them.
Thanks so much."
The boss stepped away from the teleconference for two minutes.
The participants used this period of time to create with the MoveInk pen.
After two minutes, the boss continued the conversation by saying:
"Hi again, could you please share with me your final design on our
shared videoconference screen using Selective Sharing? I'm also sharing
my screen with the clients now."
Participants showed design idea to boss using Selective Sharing and
flicking gestures. The boss continued to say
"Thank you, I'll be discussing the design with the client and let you
know how it goes."
The boss left the teleconference. This was the end of phase
2,
followed by a questionnaire (Appendix D). Participants were aware that
this was a role-playing scenario regarding Selective Sharing in a remote
meeting. The primary goal of this session was to evaluate the Selective
Sharing interactions (phase
2)
and compare that with the alternative tool,
i.e. regular pen and paper (phase i), to selectively share and present
content they created: Which would they prefer? As users create content
on private workspace, would they be able to effectively transfer only
93
specific content onto the screen in real-time using Movelnk? Would they
find the Selective Sharing gestures intuitive or difficult? Would they look
confident or frustrated? This session took about 15 minutes.
6.2 Subject Recruitment
Subjects who were qualified for the experiment had to meet the
following criteria: they were over 18 years old and are capable of using a
pen to write and draw on paper. There was no inclusion or exclusion
criteria based on age, gender, or race/ethnic origin. Subjects in this study
were recruited through Emails or Internet postings via social media. A
subject recruiting email is attached in Appendix H. Their participation in
this study was completely voluntary and they were free to choose whether
to be in it or not. If they choose to be in this study, they may subsequently
withdraw from it at any time without penalty or consequences of any kind.
Each subject was given a $10 gift card upon the completion of their study
if they would like it.
6.3 Study Procedure
The study was conducted in MIT Media Lab. The study procedure
was designed and carried out as the following:
The researchers in the study introduced the purpose of the study to
the
subjects
and
provided
the
consent
94
(Appendix
G).
Once
the
participants read and signed the consent form, each participant was taken
into a room as illustrated in Figure
12.
The study was divided into four sessions, which were carried out in
the following sequence.
Usability Study Session 1: Free content creation and sharing, as
described in section 6.1.1.
The runtime of this session was io minutes, including the
instruction and the 5-minute free exploration session, followed by a
questionnaire to evaluate the gesture interactions and usability of the
system.
Targeting Surface
User
Workstation
Regular paper
Figure
12.
The setup for the usability study session
95
1.
Figure
12
shows the setting for the usability study. The room was
equipped with at least one table for the participant to draw on, a screen
for them to transfer paper sketches onto through gestures, a couple of
chairs for them to use, and a camera to document the study. The room
had transparent glass walls for the researchers to observe their actions,
responses, and facial expressions, and to provide assistance if necessary. A
MoveInk pen and a deck of blank paper were provided on the table. The
computer system was underneath the table.
Usability Study Session
section
2:
Group interaction, as described in
6.1.2.
Figure 13. The setup for the usability study session
This session was divided into two phases. In phase
1,
2.
participants
used a regular pen and paper to collaborate on a drawing. In phase
2,
they
used MoveInk pen. Each phase was three minutes. In the end of each
96
phase participants filled out a questionnaire (Appendix B and C). The
total runtime of this session was
15-20
minutes. They were taken in the
same room as above where each participant was provided with one
MoveInk pen, as shown in Figure
13.
Usability Study Session 3: Remote interaction using Selective
Sharing, as described in section 6.1.3.
~Teleconference
Regular pen
Figure
Regular paper
14.
Screen
The setting for the usability study session 3.
This session was divided into two phases. In phase
used a regular pen and paper. In phase
2,
i,
participants
participants used the MoveInk
pen with which Selective Sharing was enabled. Each phase was five
minutes. Between phase 1 and phase
2,
the researchers introduced
Selective Sharing to the participants. In the end phase
2,
participants filled
out a questionnaire (Appendix D). The total runtime of this session was 15
minutes.
97
Figure
14
presents the setting for the usability study. Different from
the settings for the previous sessions, the participants were provided with
a computer with camera and Internet connection in front of them. This
computer
connected
them
to
a
remote
audience
through
videoconference. They were asked to use their own regular pens in phase
a
i.
If they did not have a preferred pen with them to use, they were provided
with a regular pen and black sheets of paper. The rest of the setting in this
usability study room remained the same as in the previous sessions.
The usability study session 3 was followed by a final questionnaire
(Appendix E) regarding the overall experience
using MoveInk and
collected feedback on other feedback such as "Is there anything you wish
you could do with MoveInk that you cannot do now?" In the end of this
study, participants filled out a demographics survey (See Appendix F). The
results of the study are presented in the next chapter.
98
Chapter 7
Results and Discussion
This chapter discusses the results of the usability study. We
recruited
20
participants;
19
of them completed the study. Among the 19
participants, ii of the participants were females and 8 were males between
the age of 18 and 35. Of these participants,
17
were right-handed and i was
left-handed. All of them were capable of using pens to write and sketch on
paper and were familiar with using computers. The participation was
voluntary and anonymous, with all participants completing all phases of
the study. The data was collected at the time of the study. All data
collected remained anonymous, though some of the videos and photos
99
may show participants' faces. The data gathered were non-sensitive and
were used for research purposes only. The study took place at the MIT
Media Lab.
7.1 Gesture Usability
This session describes the results of the free exploration session in
the usability study to evaluate the gesture usability. The gestures
evaluated in this session included the flicking gesture, the clockwise
twisting gesture and the counterclockwise twisting gesture. In addition to
each individual gesture, the accuracy of the system performance as a
whole was also evaluated.
7.1.1 Flicking
The flicking gesture signaled to the system that a user wished to
transfer their drawing or writing on paper to a selected display. As
illustrated in Figure
15,
all participants were able to successfully transfer
their creation on paper to the display screen through a flick of the pen. All
of them rated using the flicking gesture to share as intuitive (among
which, 75% as "very intuitive") and easy (62.5% as "very easy").
100
100
90
80
0 --
70
-
60
---
_
M40 ~ 40
K easy
-
USintuitive
intuitive
30
20
10
0
1 [not at
2
3
4
5 [very]
all]
Figure 15. According to user ratings, transferring sketches on
paper to the screen by flicking the pen is easy and intuitive.
We also observed their facial expression and emotional response;
87.5% of the participants expressed surprise and excitement. Some made
the comment "wow!" when seeing their shared content appearing on the
screen after the first flick.
7.1.2
Twisting
The twisting gestures involve clockwise twist and counterclockwise
twist. All the participants were able to use MoveInk pen and twisted it
clockwise to turn their still sketches into animations. 84.2 % of the
participants reported that this clockwise twisting gesture intuitive
(10.52%
rated it as 5: extremely intuitive; 73.68% rated it 4:somewhate intuitive),
and the rest reported this gesture 3 on a scale of 5. Twisting the pen
counterclockwise reverse the animation playback direction. 94-75% of the
101
participants reported the counterclockwise twisting gesture intuitive
(15.8% rated it as 5: extremely intuitive; 78-95% rated it 4:somewhate
intuitive.) The rest rated it as neutral (Figure 16).
100
90
80
70
60
Eu
50
CL
40
-- -
-_-zL--
-- -
- -- --
----
-
CW
--
CCW
-
to
-__-__
30
20
*c-
--
-
10
A
1[not
at all]
2
3
4
5 [very]
Figure 16. According to user ratings, it is intuitive using clockwise
twisting (CW) and counterclockwise twisting (CCW) gestures to
transform still sketches into animation.
As they used the twisting gestures to animate their sketches, all of
the participants were drawn to the animation on the screen. None of them
seem to be confused or frustrated, but all of the participants were smiling
or surprised by the animation they flicked and animated on the screen
through gestures. Towards the end of this session, 78.95% of the
participants did not want this free drawing session to end. They asked for
an extension of time to play with the pen more. Three participants
102
continued to draw for another two to five minutes as they were not willing
to leave the even after the experimenters reminded them the time was up.
The rest of the participants followed the instruction of the experimenter
and proceeded to the next session.
7.1.3 Accuracy
Besides the gesture interactions, this study also measured the
system performance. We analyzed the videos recorded during the
usability study, with particular focus on the accuracy of the gesture
responses to see if the system detected the flicking gesture, received the
data, and responded to the gestures correctly. This study evaluated the
false positive rate by observing if movements of the pen other than
flicking gesture resulted in transferring their drawings to the display
screen. From the videos, we observed that each participant had a
particular way in using the pen to write or draw, which involved different
movements of the pen. Some participants moved the pen very fast, while
some participants moved the pens more gently. This caused different level
of movements of the pen. Even while not writing or drawing, we observed
participants playing with the pen by moving it in the air or rotating it.
Also, a few participants dropped the pen to the floor accidentally. None of
these movements caused false positive errors.
103
7.2 Collaboration, Social Interaction, and
Self-reflection
7.2.1 Comparing using Movelnk with using a regular pen in a
collaborative drawing
Comparing to using a the pen with and without Movelnk functions,
63.16% of the participants rated that they like the collaborative drawing
using Movelnk more than using a regular pen.
High ratings
Those who preferred Movelnk to a regular pen for the following
reasons:
First, people found it easy and intuitive:
"Moveink makes it easier show the process. It feels more interactive.
Also, you can see the work as your collaborate, there was some story telling
going on. You can see when the story turns into an interest sequence of
event."
Also, a lot of the participants mentioned the enjoyment. They
enjoyed watching the process of each individual's creation and the process
of how the trajectory from each participant came along, interacted with or
inspired each other to become a collaborative work:
104
"I enjoyed playing with the MoveInk and watching the process on the
screen and seeing how both pens could work at the same time."
"I enjoyed seeing the trajectory of both creators' drawings,
especially when we saw how we compromised and inspiredeach other."
"It captures the moment when drawing. Watching the drawing on
the screen as a video gives a different type of enjoyment. It feels very
different when I'm drawing v.s. viewing what I'm drawing."
"I like how I can see my creative process and even see the drawing
being undrawn. It makes my own creativeprocess more visual."
"becauseMoveInk can record the process of our ideas."
"It's interesting watching the replay."
In addition, some participants reported that using Movelnk gave
them a feeling of achievement that using a regular pen did not provide:
"The pushing the drawing from paper to screen part is very
interesting. It triggers the feeling of achievement."
"... [I could] track my thoughts along the way. That might help me
remembering what I was trying to achieve."
Besides that, some participants found it easier to collaborate
because it is easier to view the work on a big screen than on the paper:
"I can visually see the bigger image, which was more stimulating."
105
Most interestingly, participants explored creative ways of using
Movelnk pen to produce animated stories or an interactive game:
"You can create an animatedstoryline while collaboration."
"I liked it with MoveInk more because my partner destroyed my tree
[that I drew on paper] and I was able to resuscitatethe tree using MoveInk.
Animate it let us see the process and it was fun!"
Low ratings
15.79%
was indifferent.
21.05%
liked Movelnk less comparing to
using it as a regular pen in this collaborative session. The reasons behind
this include:
"The computer was being slow, so it was more distracting than
anything else."
"You can see instantly what and where the other person is drawing.
With the MoveInk you need to waitfor the other side to flick it."
"I think both regular pen and MoveInk has its benefit. With a
regular pen, I have more control of displaying different pressure on paper
(light strokes and darkerstrokes and details)."
Despite the majority of the participants preferred using Movelnk
much more than using a regular pen, the feedback from those who did
not rated it high gave us insight to the improvement we could make on
the project in the future. The computer needed to be upgraded in order to
io6
have more memory and computing power to process the graphics and
animation rendering in a timely manner. The digital pen used in the
system was the most basic pen without pressure sensitivity. The MoveInk
gesture-sensing module, however, can be attached to different digital
pens and this will allow users to create and animate their work with fine
details of different strength of the pen stroke.
7.2.2
Social cue and turn-taking
We observed that the flick gesture served an extra function, which
was to visually show other participants that something was being shared
and who was sharing it. The study revealed new social interaction
mediated by the pen gesture interactions which engaged participation and
collaboration. In the unstructured free-drawing session, users responded
to each other's flick by flicking back. As they flicked back and forth in
turn, they naturally evolved this process into collaborative creation,
building upon the other's drawings flicked onto the shared screen, turning
that into a story, a game, or a complete sentence. Participants reported, "I
noticed my partner flicking their pen, which made me pay more attention
to them and to what they shared on the screen."
7.2-3 Impact on the creation process
42.11%
of the participants reported that, after using the MoveInk
pen and see the animated version of their creation with their partner, they
changed what they wanted to draw next. This indicated that using the
107
MoveInk pen impacted on either their creativity or the creation process.
The primary reason was that they could plan ahead and used the pen to
make an animated collaborative story:
"Yes. Since this will come in the order that I draw, I might be
thinking about ways to take the advantage of animation to make a story or
at least something more than a still image."
"Yes, because they are quite different and animated version give
you animation idea."
"It really changed how we draw and what we draw next, and this
would change the final visual effect."
In addition, using MoveInk helped them
see their partner's
intention and impact on their next move:
"I can understand the other person's intention more just by
watching the animation."
This also changed their composition on the canvas:
"yea. I saw a lot more room and that influenced me to go bigger
and expand the picture."
Other participants were not consciously influenced by the use of
MoveInk. The main reason was because they already had a pretty set plan
in mind about what to draw and they did not care about what happened
on the screen:
io8
"No, there has been a picture that I imagined, or a direction I
wanted to go for drawing, so it doesn't really matter if seeing the animated
version or not."
"Not really. Before I draw, I already have some kind of idea in my
mind on what to put on the paper."
Other reasons included:
"Not really, I actually just enjoyed seeing it animated. I wasn't
really thinking about drawing anything else."
"No. The interaction with the other artist impacts what I draw
more than what is on the screen."
The ability to turn a paper sketch into an animated work impacted
on people's creation process. This function allowed people to plan ahead
to draw in certain sequence to be later viewed as an animated story. In
addition, the use of Movelnk pen in the collaborative session impacted
primarily on one's ability to reveal their partner's intention. Through the
gesture animation, users understand the collaborative work from their
partner's perspective. The results were further confirmed in the next
session.
7.2.4 Engagement and self-reflection during the collaboration
process
High ratings
109
73.68% of participants rated that they felt more engaged in this
collaborative work using Movelnk comparing to using a regular pen.
Among them, 71-43% felt somewhat more engaged, and 28-57% felt much
more engaged. These participants mentioned that using Movelnk changed
their responses to their partner's creation:
"I was inspired by my collaborators idea and have a brief time of
pause to think what is my next step."
"Seeing the animated version made me think about this: at what point
in my drawing did I make my partner decide what to respond to my work?"
"Because MoveInk can record the process, I can see how my partner
created his part. This made me want to build on it and have more
collaborationwith him to finish this picture."
"It triggers some discussion."
"We could think about new ways to draw a story."
Low ratings
27.32%
of the participants did not feel a significant change in their
engagement in the collaboration using Movelnk, comparing to using a
regular pen. These were the same individuals who rated that they liked
Movelnk less comparing to using a regular pen. The reason was the same
given the computer being too slow at their session, or that they had
already had plans in mind about what to draw so using different pens
110
didn't make a difference. Given these, none of the participants rated that
using MoveInk made them feel less engaged in the collaboration process.
Interestingly, beyond our expectation to receiving feedback on the
collaboration process, most of the participants reflected on their own
drawings rather than focusing on their partner's contribution. For
example, participants reported that
"I saw the details more meticulously, so I can improve the flaws."
"It made me more deliberatein my drawing so that my lines were less
sketchy."
This indicated that MoveInk's animation playback function not
only impacted on the way people created with their partners and engaged
collaborators more, but also played an important role in giving individual
feedback on their own drawings. In turn, people used it to improve their
drawing in their next creation.
7.3 Selective Sharing
7.3.1 The Selective Sharing gesture usability
93.8% of users rated the Selective Sharing gesture "desirable" or
"very desirable." They reported that the selective gestures were easy to
select and easy to share the selected content. They reported that
111
"The circle method [i.e., the Selective Sharing gestures] made things
easy to select and share";
"I don't have to worry about things I wrote wrong being seen by
others";
"It was great that I could select only what I want to show and I get to
keep my doodles private."
In addition,
the
design and computer graphics
algorithms
developed for Selective Sharing also allowed users to continue to draw
after they have made a selection and share the content at a later time.
Alternatively, participants could also select any content previously
generated on the same paper to share them at the current time as the
conversation went. All of the participants rated Selective Sharing very
intuitive when using it in a collaborative session.
Dartiipant
rrncmmentPd in the questionnaire:
"It is convenient to share [my] work by flicking the pen and see the
work appear on the screen instantaneously ratherthan sending it through
email or other tools with my computer."
"It is just a hassle to scan what you have written, attach them to an
email and send it."
"Sometimes, I just draw it on paper and use the webcam to share
with others; however, it's very inconvenient and not intuitive."
112
Users also reported, "The fact that one can write on a piece of paper
and send it to the a computer screen makes the technique more intuitive
than a regular tablet."
7.3.2
The Selective Sharing gesture usability
In the remote meeting session, we compared the results from the
first phase where participants used regular pen and paper with phase
2
of
the session where participants used MoveInk pen's Selective Sharing
function. 78-95% participants preferred using Selective Sharing to using a
regular pen (Figure
17).
In addition, comparing the results from the two
phases, participants found that using MoveInk Selective Sharing was easier
than using a regular pen in the remote meeting (p=o.oo3).
For
participants who rated the Selective Sharing "extremely easy" or "very easy"
(36.84% rated 5 and
26.32%
rated 4 on a
1-5
scale), they also reported in
the questionnaire that
"[It was] cleaner and clearer way to share ideas; more immediate
sharing than holding up to camera."
"They could immediately see my drawings and only the ones that I
wanted them to see. Thatfeature was quite useful."
"It makes things easierfor me to develop multiple designs, knowing
that I can choose which to share later."
"ideas can be shared easily and effectively. No need to copy or scan
my drawing. Saves time and effort."
113
"do not have to worry about lighting of environment to share
drawing. ";
"can share drawing live."
"Video conferences can be really blurry and I think the MoveInk pen
has potentialto present a lot more detail."
" makes it easy to select what you want to share."
"I can filter out all the things that I didn't want to share on the
screen.
Among all users, one person preferred regular pens to Selective
Sharing because "the system was buggy." This was the same person who
commented that the computer was too slow.
We also observed that in phase i, most people shared their final
design by folding their paper to hide the content that they were unwilling
to share with their boss in the videoconference. Some people responded
in the questionnaire the reason they prefer Selective Sharing was that "I
don't like folding paper" and there was no time allowed in the meeting for
them to redraw the final design to present to the boss.
84.21% of the participants rated that Selective Sharing was useful
for videoconferences. The people who did not rate this useful or
responded "maybe/not sure" was for the reason of the computer operation
speed being too slow. For those who rated it useful, their reasons include:
114
100
90
8o
50
-
70
40
30
20
10
Regular Pen
No preference
Selective Sharing
Figure 17. When communicate ideas in remote meetings, users
prefer using FlickInk pen's Selective Sharing.
"It is very convenient and I can finish the request on one paper and
just show the perfect part."
"It is generally difficult to show a drawing on the monitor during a
video meeting. Selective Sharing made it easy!"
"Because it was extremely easy to share my drawings and I could let
the boss to see my work without the distraction from the previous
drawings."
"Ithelp designer not to worry about what he doesn't want to show."
"It gives me options to choose the best work out of my design
iterationsmuch quicker and easier."
115
7-3-3 Comparing those who enjoy being in the spotlight vs. those
who are shy
One assumption about Selective Sharing was that for those who feel
comfortable developing ideas on the whiteboard while others are
watching, may not find it desirable using Selective Sharing comparing to
those who tend to be shy, sociaphobic, or nervous being on the spotlight.
In this study, we investigated the correlation between the personality type
and their ratings on using Selective Sharing.
(A) Whiteboard
(B) Selective Sharing
60
60
50'-
s0o
40'
40 T-
C
30
30
20'
20
10
10
Somewhat
Extremely
uncomfortable uncomfortable
Netural
Somewhat
comfortable
Extremely
comfortable
Much less
Somewhat
less
Same
Somewhat
more
Much more
Figure 18. (A) The majority of users feel comfortable or neutral when
developing ideas on whiteboard in front of people.
(B) Comparing to using a whiteboard in front of others, the majority of users
find it more/much more comfortable using Selective Sharing to develop ideas
privately and share only selected content.
In this study, 36.84% of the participants rated that they feel
somewhat uncomfortable when developing their idea on the whiteboard
n6
with other people watching,
21.05%
of them rated neutral, while
42.11%
of
people rated themselves comfortable or extremely comfortable on a
whiteboard developing and sharing ideas while others were watching
(Figure i8A). However, among them, 89.47% of the participants rated that
using Selective Sharing felt more comfortable comparing to using a
whiteboard.
10.53%
of them rated the two indifferent. None of them chose
whiteboard over Selective Sharing even though the majority rated
themselves
either somewhat comfortable
or extremely comfortable
developing ideas in front of people (Figure i8B). We further analyzed each
individual's rating. There was no significant difference between those who
were shy and those who enjoyed the spotlight in their ratings on using
Selective Sharing. The correlation between their comfort level being in the
spotlight and preference using Selective Sharing was negatively correlated
but the correlation was low (r=-o-38, Figure
19).
The finding rejected the
assumption that only people who found themselves uncomfortable being
in the spotlight would prefer using Selective Sharing. Overall, people rated
Selective Sharing as either the same or more comfortable comparing to
using developing ideas in front of others, no matter what their personality
type was (p = 0.007).
117
r= -0.38
.
It
C
5
(Extremely
comfortable)
0
(Neutral) 3
0
0
C
0
1
(Extremely
uncomfortable)I
0
0
2
3
5
(Much more
(Much les)
comfortable)
comfortable)
Selective Sharing, comparing to whiteboard
Figure 19. According to individual user's ratings, being uncomfortable in the
spotlight is negatively correlated with their preference using Selective Sharing
(r=-o-38). The size of the bubbles indicates the number of participants at each
data point. The finding rejected the assumption that only people who found
themselves uncomfortable being in the spotlight would prefer using Selective
Sharing.
7-3.4 Potential new applications using Selective Sharing
Participants in this session not only evaluated the usability of
Selective Sharing, they also provided valuable feedback on potential other
situations where Selective Sharing may be useful, such as when people
were "debating"; at "Auction, bidding"; "online tutoring"; "brainstorming";
u8
"creating artwork"; "composing music"; "architectural design"; "idea
sharing in classrooms"; "showing instructions"; "project management."
One particular participant responded "I have my own graphic design
business, so this would be very useful for discussing potential design
sketches with my clients." Another participant found Selective Sharing
particularly useful for preparing engineering designs and share only the
content that was specific to certain clients at a later time, at a different
location: "Anytime you need to do something that can be more easily
drawn, or when notes need to be taken. When charts need to be shared
when two people are not in the same place." This opened up new
possibility using Selective Sharing and Movelnk in potential future
applications in various areas from education, art, design, to engineering
and business management.
7.4 Other Findings
When asked if this prototype were produced with an excellent
form factor, 89.47% of the participants would recommend Movelnk to a
friend (Figure
20).
Participants commented that what they liked the most
about the overall experience with Movelnk was:
"How easy it was to share my drawings, and especially the Selective
Sharing."
"The ability to record the progress of drawing, it gives the art piece
more life."
119
"I love how it tracked the creation process and allow me to
rewind/play."
"I enjoy how we can use gestures and interact with things through
the pen."
"[It]can trace my own thoughts, and remind me what I did along the
process to come to thefinal picture."
"The ability to instantly transfermy drawings elsewhere and see it on
the big screen."
"When I was using selective share, I can quickly draw many ideas
without worrying about how to show them."
"Seeing a drawing happen in real time."
"It senses pen movement, that I can have both a hard copy and a
digital copy. Which is different from other digital pen. Also I don't need
draw it on a sensor pad. The Selective Sharing is good, so I don't have to
careabout showing unrelated notes to others."
"Using the pen was very easy and enjoyable."
"It wasfun and new."
"I've never seen anything like this, so it's very interesting and fun
experience. I really like the Selective Sharing, for designers it is a great tool.
120
100
90
8o
-
70
6o
50
-
v
S40
S30
20
10
0
Yes
No
Figure
20.
According to users' ratings, the majority
would recommend MoveInk to friends.
Furthermore, we also gathered valuable feedback on other things
that participants wished they could do with MoveInk that they cannot do
now. Some participants mentioned that the pen could draw lines at
different weight on paper but the shared digital version did not reflect the
line weight. One specific feedback was "It would be cool to be able to see
weighted lines on the shaded screen..." Such comments were from people
who rated themselves as skillful at sketching and drawings. The majority
commented
that they
wish
the
pen
had
erasing
function.
The
counterclockwise twisting gesture could erase part of the drawings but
would be performed in the sequence when the drawing was developed.
Other feedback included allowing for different colors: "More colors will
significantly increase the experience of drawing;" change of animation
speed or sequence "[It] would be better if we don't need to worry about
121
the sequence of the drawing in the animation ... better if we can re-order
the sequence by ourselves afterwards." Other feedback was to have a
"built-in grid system in the background for engineers", or the ability to
"draw in the air instead of drawing on the surface" of the paper.
Other comments specifically on the usability includes "Ifound the
shape on the MoveInk a bit inconvenient in that it was a little awkward to
draw with. I do appreciate how light the pen was." However, on the
contrary, another person commented, "Pen is heavy."
One feedback about the use of gesture: "I'd like to be able to
navigate through the animation of drawing by moving the pen left/right to
navigate the video (similar to the way we can navigate computer videos
today using the bar below the video.) It's basically the ability to see an
overview of the animation and to move to the parts that I'm most interested
in." However, moving the pen left or right can be very similar to the
movement people commonly have when using a pen.
In the end of the questionnaire, we collected general comments
from the participants. These comments were listed below:
"I would totally buy this if it were commercialized. It's a really cool
concept!"
"Cool design!"
122
"Anotheridea is maybe make a detachable thing that lets you put the
MoveInk sensor on any pen you want... So the user can choose any pen they
desire. Also easier to replace ink when the pen runs out of ink."
"Impressive."
"...make the sketching space bigger than the existing rectangle..."
"I really enjoy participatingin this research!! To see how technology
could help us go far and beyond."
"Great work. I think you just need to find the best application, and
design aroundthose people's needs..."
"Is this product out in the market right now?"
123
124
Chapter 8
Real-world Deployment
8.1 MoveInk as an Interactive Art Installation
The process of creating art itself is an art. However, the creation
process is usually non-visible in the completion of the final form. What if
artists are given an effortless way to revisit the creation process embedded
in the ink trajectory, as if they were travelling back in time? What if we
could leverage the advantage of pen and paper sketches, but go beyond
their static final form?
125
In order to point out the importance of the real-world deployment,
the director of the Media Lab Joi Ito contended that "Deploy or die"
should extend Nicholas Negroponte's "Demo or die" as the measure of
success for innovation. Although he primarily refers to brining designs
and innovation to the market in the context of business, the spirit of
real-world deployment can be also valuable in the creative and artistic
field.
In addition to doing a demo and documentation in the laboratory
setting, the research was deployed into the real world through art
exhibitions. In museums, the general public can be exposed to the
freedom and flexibility of creating and imagining new possibilities. We
were able to observe how people interacted with Movelnk unguided.
MoveInk was first exhibited as an interactive art installation in the
ACM Multimedia Art Gallery in FAD Museum 9 curated by international
committees. The FAD Museum, recognized as the first and primary centre
for design and architecture in Catalonia and Spain, is a place where people
are more prone to creative endeavors. This exhibition provided an
opportunity for us to see how Movelnk enriched artistic expression and
participatory experience in the real world outside of the laboratory.
9 The FAD museum, also known as Fostering Arts and Design Museum was the ACM Multimedia Art
Gallery Exhibition Museum in
2013.
It is located in downtown Barcelona adjacent to the Barcelona
Museum of Contemporary Art (http://www.fad.cat/contents/view/aboutus).
126
Different from laboratory settings that require test subjects to
perform specific tasks, the museum exhibition was free for visitors to
interact with the MoveInk installation without rules. This real-world
exhibition opened up opportunities to see how the audience may come
across different ways of interacting with MoveInk and with each other
when they were given different perspectives.
In addition, this exhibition provided an opportunity to explore the
impact of MoveInk's gesture interactions on how people do creative work
in real world. More particularly, given the design of MoveInk for its ability
to dynamically transform still artwork into animated forms, I wanted to
explore if MoveInk as an art installation could allow the artists and
audiences alike to revisit the creation process of an artwork. From there,
this exhibition allowed us to explore if this could allow the audience to
take the artist's perspective and vice versa, switching from being a viewer
to being a creator. This led to further observations on how MoveInk
enabled creation and interactions across time. Furthermore, this allowed
us to see its impact on how people create individually or collaboratively,
as a function of time.
8.2
The Museum Exhibition Design
The exhibition experience consisted of two components: an
interactive experience and a viewing experience. To bring the experiences
into a real-world setting in a museum context, the exhibition required
127
specific setup not only to allow the visitors to interactwith the installation
comfortably, but also to provide an inviting but not distracting space for
the audience to view the artwork.
8.2.1
The interactive experience
The interactive experience was designed with the goal of allowing
visitors to freely pick up the MoveInk pen and create on paper. With this
design, they could interact with their own creation through gestures to
transfer the paper sketches onto the digital canvas, and to transform still
sketches into an animated trajectory. The goal was also to provide
opportunities for museum visitors to interact with each other in the
gallery space through MoveInk and through the artwork they created.
8.2.2
The viewing experience
In designing the viewing experience, the goal was to engage the
MU EM11
V,
museum vIsitors, as
fiLlly
.*r -frnlpvir ;"~
walked in' th r, nl X g.at.on
I-rnfl
r
yi-e~
n
on canvas as well as in comparing that with the original creation on paper.
In addition, an extra viewing experience was designed for this museum
exhibition -- another Movelnk pen was displayed in the pedestal along
with a documentary in video form, with the goal of presenting its artistic
statement and design metaphors.
8.2.3
From exhibition design to technical implementation
Considering the above components, Figure
21
presents the sketches
used to implement the designs for the interactive experience and the
128
viewing experience. As illustrated in this exhibition design, the table was
designed to be at the height for people to comfortably use in their
standing position. On the surface of the table, Movelnk pens would be
installed. The tables were also designed particularly for this exhibition so
that it could host computers equipment required for this interactive
installation without distracting the viewers. In this exhibition design, the
entrance to the gallery was arranged in the way that it opened towards the
video display and the canvas on the wall so that visitors walking by could
view the artwork on the canvas as well as seeing other museum visitors'
interactions happening in the gallery space. The TV screen planned to
display the video was arranged on the side facing the entrance. An
optional wall was planned in this original design sketch so viewers can
have a quiet, undisturbed space to create and to interact through
MoveInk. The side table and chairs were arranged towards the side of the
gallery space for museum staff to manage the gallery exhibition.
Preparing
for
an
exhibition
requires
careful
planning,
communication and coordination with the exhibition curators and the
museum staff, especially when it was in another country. In the process of
the exhibition preparation, the curators were located in England and the
museum managers, staff, and the gallery constructors were based in Spain,
while the installation, my team and I were in the United States. The
primary means to coordinate among the international teams was through
emails with drawings and text in order to communicate the exhibition
129
designs and implementation plans. We transformed the original design
sketches (Figure
21)
into a technical drawing (Figure
22)
with precision in
shape and distance for the museum managers and engineers on-site to
construct the gallery space.
Considering having a clean writing surface for the exhibition, it
required computer equipment to be hosted inside the table allowing
cables to extending to the surface. The design of the tall tables was
illustrated in this technical drawing. A couple of supporting layers inside
the table were planned to hold the computer equipment and a projector.
The tables were designed and built specifically for this exhibition, so we
designed the tables that could be easily assembled. The only wire that
would need to come out to the tabletop was the sensor attached to the
paper which serves as a reference point as the pen's position was recorded.
I designed the tall tables and arranged two of them together with a gap in
between for the wire, such that the wire could flexibly slide long the gap.
This allowed people to comfortably move the paper to any place on the
table. A cover board would be mounted to the front side of the tables,
leaving the rear side open for projection. The front board is not shown in
the technical drawing (Figure
22)
in order to illustrate the interior
structure of the tables.
130
44
Figure 21. The original sketches for the exhibition design.
131
Projector on this I
-- mci gap, no board
Computer Wires should
come up throufi the gap
TI
a
01
'Ae'
Projection Screen
~-
DETAIL C
SCALE 1: 48-
IV Screen Facing Entrcrnce
4
--
0 Ir
Projeter on imner
ctIle shelf
RectangAar E*ition Space
Third walt not necessay
WE
DWG. NO.
SCALE: 1:96WEGHT:
4
Figure
22.
REV
Exhibitkn Space Drawing
--
3
SHEt I Of I
2
The technical drawing for the museum exhibition design.
In addition to the technical drawing, we provided a design diagram
of the gallery with the arrangement of the equipment and furniture in the
space (Figure 23). The gallery for MoveInk interactive installation was
near the entrance of the museum so lighting and the orientation of the
gallery space was also considered in the plan. Along with this diagram and
the technical specifications, a list of equipment and furniture was
provided to the museum manager and the on-site gallery constructors as
follows:
132
M
--
Canvas on the wall
for projection.
Small table
on the side
Two tall tables
with writing
surface with a
computer and
a projector
stored inside
the table.
TV screen
showing
video,
facing
entrance
/
Gap between two
tables for computer
Board
cords, reaching up
blocking inside to the writing
surface
-
Pedestal
sitting next to
the screen, near
the entrance
Optional
wall
Figure
23.
The exhibition design diagram.
1. Two tall tables (36" L
x 15"
W
x
42" H each) for the audience to
draw/sketch on, in their standing position while they can see the
projection. Requirements for the table:
1.1
The table facing the audience has a cover board on the front
side.
1.2 The table facing the projection screen has no cover board in
case the projector needs to go under that table.
(Projector: if the projector is not mounted on the ceiling in the
gallery, it can be set up underneath the table.)
133
M
M
There is no board in between these two tables, as a couple wires
1.3
connecting to the computer needs to reach the top of the tables. The
wires may come out from the gap in between the two tables.
1.4
Two layers should be built under the table to support the
computer (and the projector at appropriate height).
2.
A small table (30" L X20" W x 32" H):
This small table would be used for the exhibitor and museum staff
to maintain the installation when necessary.
3. The gallery space: (4mL x 3mW space or
13' x
10').
4. Four power sockets (13amp/220-24ov) and extension cords to
support US plugs.
5. Two chairs.
6. The video has sound. Quiet space is required.
8. A 36" TV screen with built-in speakers and USB input:
This should be mounted on the wall facing the entrance to display
a video.
10.
A pedestal with cover (15" W x
15"
L x 42" H).
11. Lighting should keep dim in the gallery besides a spotlight at the
pedestal.
134
8.2.4
Bringing the exhibition to life
I had the privilege to work with the curators and professors Marc
Cavazza and Antonio Camurri and coordinated with the museum
managers and on-site constructors to bring this exhibition to life. While
the exhibition installation was taking place in Spain, the MoveInk
interactive installation, along with related projects, had been on view in
America for another live demonstration and exhibition. However, the
Barcelona exhibition opened before the exhibition in America ended. My
team and I duplicated the system in order to make both demonstration
and exhibitions happen in parallel for the time overlapped. However,
there was no one who could set up the system in Barcelona while I had to
lead and run the demonstrations in America. Fortunately, I found Dr.
Jochen Huber, who was in MIT, and Yichao Jin, who was in Singapore,
would both be travelling to Barcelona. Before I could leave to set up the
interactive
installations,
Jochen
kindly helped
me
transport
the
non-interactive part of the installation materials to the exhibition site in
Barcelona. Upon Yichao's arrival, he picked them up from Jochen and
arranged them based on the exhibition plans as illustrated in Figure
23.
At
the same time, the museum gallery and furniture was being built. By the
time my plane arrived Barcelona, all the construction was completed and
the MoveInk non-interactive components were in place for the viewing
experience. This allowed me to finish setting up the MoveInk system and
135
the rest of the installation for the interactive exhibit in time for the
exhibition opening.
Although none of us have ever met each other before, the remote
coordination and collaboration with Jochen, Yichao, Marc, Antonio, and
various museum staff and volunteers brought the exhibition to reality
(Figure
24).
136
The Movelnk exhibit. (A) Exhibition design
was implemented. Museum visitors entered the gallery
to (B) view or (C) interact with Movelnk.
Figure
24.
137
8.3 Audience Participatory Experience: Changing
Perspectives
This section and the following sections document the real-world
interactions that international visitors experienced with MoveInk. Visitors
to the museum generally expected to see artwork on the wall created by
artists, but instead, in this exhibition of MoveInk, the audience became
the artists themselves.
Figure
24
shows the viewing experience
(Figure 2 4 B) and
interactive experience (Figure 24C) as visitors came in to the gallery.
Through interacting with MoveInk, the museum visitors took on an
artist's perspective. By deciding when to transfer their own creation from
paper to canvas, and in what direction to show the animation through
MoveInk gestures, museum visitors were producing their own show for
themselves and other audiences to view.
Interacting with MoveInk transformed the visitors' role from
passive observer to active creator. Without receiving further instruction,
museum visitors picked up the MoveInk pen and started to draw on the
paper on the tall table (Figure 2 5 A). They interacted with their creation by
using the MoveInk gestures to transfer content from paper to canvas, to
animate it, and to erase or reverse the animation (Figure 2 5 B and Cl-C 4 ).
The museum visitors not only created their own artwork in the private
138
workspace (the paper) but also showed it in the public space (the canvas)
where they could express their ideas to other visitors.
A museum visitor interacting with MoveInk. (A) The visitor
drew on paper. (B) Through gestures, she made her creation appear on
canvas, and she used the twisting gestures to transform her drawing into
Figure
25.
an animation (CI-C4). (D) The museum visitor's perspective changed
from being the artist back to the audience.
Alternating the use of different gestures, they interacted with their
artwork on canvas in real time. Once they initiated the animation, most of
the museum visitors stopped gesturing. Instead, they watched the
139
trajectory animations emerging on canvas (Figure 2 5 C1-C 4 and D). As they
watched each line they created appear on canvas, their facial expressions
changed, indicating feelings of excitement and enjoyment (Figure 26).
Figure 26. Visitors reactions when interacting with Movelnk in the
museum.
Through this Movelnk installation in the museum, individual visitors
were given an opportunity to switch perspectives, from audience to artist
and vice versa. Thus the audience is an integral part of the art installation.
Without the audience participation, the piece would not be complete.
Movelnk as an art installation also connected the audience with the art and
mediated the transition between different perspectives.
140
8.4 Audience Participatory Experience:
Inspiration from the Creation Process
In the MoveInk exhibition, as the museum visitors first started to
use MoveInk gestures, they remained engaged with the system after their
first drawing. Viewing their own creating process inspired them to further
build on existing creation. The animated trajectory of their drawings on
canvas allowed them to access the past upon the completion of the still
drawing.
Museum visitors animated their creation and interacted with it on
canvas using the twisting gestures clockwise or counterclockwise multiple
times until they continued to draw more. This implication of this
observation suggested that revisiting the creation process can encourage
one to create further and can impact on the spontaneity and divergent
thinking leading to creativity.
Furthermore, museum visitors came up with creative ways to
create, leveraging the interactivity that MoveInk provided. For example, a
visitor started with a curved line on paper. It was not clear what that
could mean. He continued to draw more on the paper, and with each flick,
he introduced a new object into the composition on canvas, which
displayed to other viewers in the museum (Figure
27).
In the end, he
combined the twisting gestures to transform the still sketches on paper
into an animated story. Each stroke he created back when he worked with
141
paper turned out to be meaningful in directing the flow of the story in the
scene.
Although it was unclear if he had the attempt in creating a story
with the whole sequence of the animation planned out ahead of time
before he started to draw or if it evolved along the way as he interacted
with the artwork through Movelnk, the museum's creative use of MoveInk
opened up new opportunities in artistic expression and interactive story
telling across time.
142
Progression of an animation created
by a museum visitor. His combined use of
gestures and sequences of drawings
transformed paper sketches into an animated
Figure
27.
story.
8.5 Audience Participatory Experience: Engaging
Audiences through Gesture Interactions
Originally, we planned to have museum staff sitting in the gallery
room in order to provide assistance to visitors as they interacted with the
installation. In the end, we did not have any museum staff on site
providing any instructions. It turned out that Movelnk installation was
self-explanatory. In addition to changing perspectives between audience
and artist, the MoveInk gestures impacted the participatory experience by
playing an unexpected role in mediating interactions among the audience.
Figure
28
documents the moment when a couple of visitors
created a new piece of artwork through Movelnk. As they animated their
artwork on canvas, their use of Movelnk gestures started to engage other
museum visitors to view and to further interact with the artwork and with
each other. For example, by watching the first group of people who
animated their work on canvas, the second group of museum visitors
mimicked the Movelnk gestures with bare hand from the back (Figure 28).
This viewing experience engaged the second group of visitors, who later
followed up to create their own artwork through MoveInk without a staff
providing any further information.
In addition, upon the gestures performed, the animation on canvas
further engaged these other visitors watching from the back. As opposed
to viewing prior artwork as a still image on canvas, the gesture-mediated
144
animation was maneuvered in real time by the creators of the work. The
gestures, along with the animation on canvas, invited these other visitors
to enter the thought process of the creator. Even though these two groups
of people were complete strangers and they did not talk to each other, the
gesture interactions mediated the flow of information from the first group
to the second without language.
Though the gestures were originally designed to interact with the
artwork, their impact on the participatory experience exceeded our
expectation. The gesture interactions, though originally designed to serve
the purpose to interact with the artwork, was now a way to open up new
dialogs among individuals as well as to demonstrate the gestures from one
visitor to another.
145
Figure 28. Movelnk gesture interactions, along with the
animated sketches on canvas created by the first visitor,
further engaged other visitors in the artwork and the
interactions.
146
8.6 Audience Participatory Experience:
Spontaneous Co-creation
Besides
interacting
with
Movelnk,
visitors
in
the
gallery
spontaneously collaborated with each other in different ways. We
observed two types of co-creation: synchronous group co-creation and
asynchronous co-creation.
8.6.i Synchronous group co-creation
Figure
29
documents a group of visitors interacting with Movelnk
and with each other in the gallery. One visitor first created a drawing and
animated it on canvas with the Movelnk pen. Upon seeing the drawing
appear on canvas in response to their Movelnk gestures, the visitors' facial
expressions immediately changed. Even though the other people in the
gallery already saw the first visitor draw on paper, their facial expressions
showed much more excitement when they saw the creation appearing on
canvas. Then as the first visitor transformed his creation into an
animation, the other visitors were even more engaged.
This further inspired these visitors in the following co-creation
process: another visitor in the gallery space picked up the pen and
spontaneously started to draw on the same paper as the first visitor.
Following that, she passed the pen to the third visitor, who transformed
the curvy lines created by the previous two into a creature.
147
This co-creation was unplanned and unguided. Visitors combined
the use of Movelnk gestures during this group co-creation process by
animating each individual's trajectory. Viewing the animated trajectory on
canvas, individuals in the group instinctively and playfully built upon each
other's creation, expanding each sketch into a new story. The spontaneity
enhanced the creative dynamic.
148
K
I
7
/'
Figure 29. Spontaneous co-creation mediated through the MoveInk gesture
interactions. Upon seeing the animated creation on canvas, museum visitors
were engaged and inspired to build upon each other's work to create
collaboratively.
8.6.2 Asynchronous co-creation
In addition to the synchronous group co-creation described in the
previous section, we observed another type of collaborative activity among
149
individuals who visited the museum at different times. After a visitor drew
on paper and interacted with their artwork on canvas, it remained on canvas.
Other visitors who came later, as we expected, viewed the artwork on
canvas, saw the original sketch on paper, and animated it through Movelnk
gestures.
Beyond our expectation, new work was born from asynchronous
co-creation, where museum visitors composed the artwork based upon
previous visitor's creation on the same sheet of paper. These visitors did not
know who created the previous work, and they did not know each other.
However, they were able to capture the previous creator's train of thought,
which was embedded in the trajectory animation. Their lives may not have
intersected, but their thoughts met, line after line, vividly merging on the
same canvas.
As the next visitor built more work on the same sheet of paper, they
were co-creating with the past, and leaving the door open to collaborate
with the future. Movelnk connected the unknown and created with the
unexpected through the asynchronous spontaneous co-creation.
150
Chapter 9
Conclusion and Future Work
9.1 Contribution
This thesis transforms one of the most important inventions in
human history, the pen, into a new interactive medium. This new
interactive medium enables users to work beyond the boundaries of paper,
with particular impact in the following areas:
(1)
Augmented participatory design:
The gesture interactions provide an intuitive way to transfer paper
content to intended digital surfaces in the immediate environment as well
151
as in a remote location, allowing users to visually represent their ideas as
their attention shifts from the surface of creation to the surface of
attention. The design of these wireless gesture sensing and intuitive
interactions
improves
upon
previous
systems
by
considering
the
convenience, accessibility, and mobility of pen and paper. The system is
easy to install and is compatible with off-the-shelf digital pens and with
any paper. Special lighting condition (e.g., cameras) or specific location
(e.g.,
tabletop)
are not
required.
The
platforms
and
the
gesture
interactions can also be applied to creation surfaces other than paper as
well, such as whiteboards or digital drawing pads of the user's choosing.
The system integrates the power of pen and paper with the ubiquitous
digital surfaces to create an augmented participatory experience. People
in a space are no longer passive information receivers. As they cross the
boundaries of paper, they can actively create, express, and share visual
representations of their ideas.
(2)
Dynamic interactions across time:
This thesis presents the interactions to represent time on physical
paper. The Movelnk gestures provide a quick and easy way for people,
with or without experience with computer technology, to transform static
sketches on paper into animated representations. These interactions
support dynamic co-creation across time on surrounding surfaces. The
usability study showed that users without prior knowledge of computer
graphics or animation algorithms were able to easily transform static
152
drawings they created on paper into animations through gestures. The
majority of users commented that what they liked the most about the
experience was the enjoyment in using the pen to interact and reveal the
creation process. With the time-based
gesture
interactions,
users
effectively built animated stories on top of each other's drawings, and
creatively turned their static sketches on paper into dynamic games.
(3) Selective Sharing:
The research creates an effective way to share selected content
quickly and easily while at the same time maintain privacy during the
creative process. Selective Sharing leverages the use of a pen to share only
specific content that the users want to share when they want to share it.
This gives users the freedom to create in a private domain and share only
chosen content in the public domain without switching devices in
real-time. The usability study confirmed that people preferred using
Selective Sharing to using regular pen and paper in meetings. The
pen-mediated content generation and sharing system not only grants
users effortless control over privacy, but enables a personalized, private
space to coexist within a collaborative, sharing process.
(4)
Audience
engagement
and
transformation
of
viewers'
perspectives:
The installation presented in this thesis provided situations in
which the audience could engage both with each other and with the
153
artwork. This research identifies that viewing the creation process inspires
new ways to create. The gesture interactions engage the audience to
participate in creation of the artwork. Furthermore, this work enables the
viewers to take the creator's perspective and vice versa. The audience
becomes creators, and transforms the participatory experience from
passive viewership to active contribution. The interactions across time
further empower unguided, spontaneous co-creation. Prior drawings can
be expanded into new work. Thus, audience participation becomes an
integral part of the artwork.
The museum exhibition of Movelnk draws attention to audience
interactivity. Visitors to the museum originally expect to see artwork on
the wall created by artists, but instead, the audience becomes the artists
themselves in this exhibit. Without the audience participation, the piece
would not be complete. Movelnk as an art installation also connects the
audience with the art and mediates the transition between different
perspectives.
The systems and interactions presented in this thesis motivate
groups of people to collaborate with each other. Having the dynamic
interactions across time allows both the audience and the creator to
interact with the work and revisit the creation process, which is
commonly not available upon the completion of a sketch on paper. The
gesture interactions engage them and inspire them to spontaneously
co-create. The trajectory animation reveals the co-creation process and
154
explores how the artwork evolves into new meanings through participant
interactions.
9.2 Future Work
As the gesture pen interaction transfers sketches from paper to
digital projections, it provides dynamic ways for people to communicate
and express across time, location,
and physical-digital
boundaries.
According to the usability study, participants rated the system as intuitive,
easy to use, and effective. While the work of the thesis was implemented
with digital displays and projection screens, these system capabilities can
be used to augment the surfaces of surrounding objects. This allows users
to integrate their own creations onto surrounding physical objects in a
quick intuitive way, and as a result, gives users an opportunity to socially
interact and engage with each other.
The usability study provided insights on new ways of social
interaction mediated by pen gestures and the impact on self-reflection on
individual creation process that can inform new ways of creation.
According to the usability study, the system has potential for applications
in design, engineering, education, art, project management, story-telling,
and co-creation.
We collected valuable feedback from the usability study that may
inform future work and in potential commercialization possibilities.
Further improvement on the form factor may include reducing the size
155
and weight of the current gesture-sensing modules to make it even more
comfortable when users hold and move the pen. Representing different
pen strokes currently relies on the digital pens of the user's choosing. The
FlickInk and MoveInk modules can be attached to future digital pens
equipped with higher resolution and pressure sensibility. Functions such
as erasing and changing colors, though not the primary focus of this
current research, may be considered to be incorporated in future
pen-based tools. The computer system can be upgraded to increase the
processing speed in rendering and wireless sensing.
In the real-world deployment at the museum, both the artists and
the audiences can trace, retrace, and interrogate the pen's trajectory. The
artists can self reflexively revisit the creation process, and the audience
can take on the artist's perspective. In this way, both discover new ways to
create. Through gesturing with the MoveInk pens, they interact with the
artwork as a function of time. In the future, we can investigate how
revisiting the creation process can impact new directions for creativity.
This leads to potential future directions to explore the impact of
time-based interactions on the creation process and collaboration.
This thesis presented unique platforms for users to become active
creators rather than passive observers, in order to initiate changes,
communicate thoughts and express ideas individually or collaboratively.
The platforms can incorporate artistic creation in the context of everyday
life. With such interfaces available to the public, we can transform
156
everyday spaces into works of art, created by everyone. This can generate
an ongoing conversation among artists, audiences,
occupants
of public
spaces.
Furthermore,
the
four
architects and
design
areas
investigated in this thesis may serve as the basis for future interface
designs to enrich the participatory experience. This thesis can be a
launching pad for further creative enhancements and lead to further
research on participatory augmented environments and its impact on
communication and collaboration in the future.
157
158
References
Baecker, Ronald M. 1969. "Picture-Driven Animation." P. 273 in Proceedingsof
AFIPS 1969 Spring Joint Computer Conference - AFIPS '69 (Spring). New York,
New York, USA: ACM Press.
(http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1476793.1476838).
Ballendat, Till, Nicolai Marquardt, and Saul Greenberg. 2010. "Proxemic Interaction:
Designing for a Proximity and Orientation-Aware Environment." P. 121 in ACM
InternationalConference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces - ITS '10. New
York, New York, USA: ACM Press.
(http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 1936652.1936676).
Block, Florian, Michael Haller, Hans Gellersen, Carl Gutwin, and Mark Billinghurst.
2008. "VoodooSketch: Extending Interactive Surfaces with Adaptable Interface
Palettes." P. 55 in Proceedingsof the 2nd InternationalConference on Tangible
and Embedded Interaction - TEI '08. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.
(http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 1347390.1347404).
Brandl, Peter, Christoph Richter, and Michael Haller. 2010. "NiCEBook: Supporting
Natural Note Taking." P. 599 in Proceedingsof the 28th International
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '10. New York, New
York, USA: ACM Press. (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1753326.1753417).
Chatty, St6phane and Patrick Lecoanet. 1996. "Pen Computing for Air Traffic
Control ." P. 87 in Proceedingsof the 14th InternationalConference on Human
Factorsin Computing Systems - CHI '96. New York, New York, USA: ACM
Press. (http://dl.acm.org/ft-gateway.cfm?id=238436&type=html).
Cook, Damon J. and Brian P. Bailey. 2005. "Designers' Use of Paper and the
Implications for Informal Tools." Proceedingsof the 17th Australia Conference
on Computer-human Interaction:Citizens Online: Considerationsfor Today and
the Future. (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 1108402).
Dang, Nguyen Thong, Monica Tavanti, Ivan Rankin, and Matthew Cooper. 2009. "A
Comparison of Different Input Devices for a 3D Environment." International
159
Journalof IndustrialErgonomics 39(3):554-63.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/SO 169814108001649).
Davis, Richard C., Brien Colwell, and James A. Landay. 2008. "K-Sketch: Animation
Made Easy." P. 413 in Proceedingof the 26th Annual CHI Conference on Human
Factorsin Computing Systems - CHI '08. New York, New York, USA: ACM
Press. (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 1357054.1357122).
Everitt, Katherine M., Scott R. Klemmer, Robert Lee, and James A. Landay. 2003.
"Two Worlds Apart: Bridging the Gap between Physical and Virtual Media for
Distributed Design Collaboration." P. 553 in Proceedingsof the 2Ith
InternationalConference on Human Factorsin Computing Systems - CHI '03.
New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.
(http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=642611.642707).
Frisch, Mathias, Jens Heydekorn, and Raimund Dachselt. 2009. "Investigating
Multi-Touch and Pen Gestures for Diagram Editing on Interactive Surfaces." P.
149 in Proceedingsof the ACM InternationalConference on Interactive
Tabletops and Surfaces - ITS '09. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.
(http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1731903.1731933).
Gladwell, Malcolm. 2002. "The Social Life of Paper." The New Yorker.
(http://www.pilecabinet.com/social life_of._paper-pdf/sociallife-of-paper.pdf).
Goel, Vinod. 1995. Sketches of Thought. MIT Press.
(http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr-&id=TzM9ltY8wWIC&pgis= 1).
Greenberg, Saul, Michael Boyle, and Jason LaBerge. 1999. "PDAs and Shared Public
Displays: Making Personal Information Public, and Public Information Personal."
Personal Technologies. (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01305320).
Gross, Mark D. and Ellen Yi-Luen Do. 1996. "Ambiguous Intentions." Pp. 183-92 in
Proceedingsof the 9th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and
technology - UIST '96. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.
(http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=237091.237119).
16o
Gumienny, Raja, Lutz Gericke, Matthias Wenzel, and Christoph Meinel. 2013.
"Supporting Creative Collaboration in Globally Distributed Companies."
-
Proceedingsof the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work
CSCW '13. (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2441890).
Guo, Fenghua, Caiming Zhang, and Lizhen Cui. 2007. "Sketching Interfaces for
Remote Collaboration." Proceedings of the I th InternationalConference on
Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design, 2007. CSCWD 2007.
(http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs-all.jsp?arnumber=4281411).
Gutwin, Carl. and Saul Greenberg. 2002. "A Descriptive Framework of Workspace
Awareness for Real-Time Groupware." Proceedingsof the 2002 Computer
Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '02).
(http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A: 1021271517844).
Haller, Michael et al. 2006. "Shared Design Space: Sketching Ideas Using Digital
Pens and a Large Augmented Tabletop Setup." Pp. 185-96 in, vol. 4282, Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, edited by Zhigeng Pan et al. Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
(http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2127271.2127293).
Haller, Michael et al. 2010. "The NICE Discussion Room." P. 609 in Proceedingsof
-
the 28th InternationalConference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
CHI '10. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.
(http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1753326.1753418).
Hassan, Nabeel, Md. Mahfuzur Rahman, Pourang Irani, and Peter Graham. 2009.
"Chucking: A One-Handed Document Sharing Technique." Pp. 264-78 in
Proceedingsof the 12th IFIP TC 13 InternationalConference on
Human-ComputerInteraction:PartII, vol. 5727, Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, edited by Tom Gross et al. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin
Heidelberg. (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1616218.1616259).
Hearst, Marti. A. 1998. "Sketching Intelligent Systems." IEEE Intelligent Systems
13(3):10-19. (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/articleDetails.jsp?amumber=683174).
161
Heath, Christian, Marina Jirotka, Paul Luff, and Jon Hindmarsh. 1994. "Unpacking
Collaboration: The Interactional Organisation of Trading in a City Dealing
Room." Pp. 147-65 in Proceedingsof the 2004 ACM Conference on Computer
Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW '04, vol. 3. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
(http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=214848.214850).
Heath, Christian and Paul Luff. 1996. "Documents and Professional Practice." Pp.
354-63 in Proceedings of the 1996 ACM Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work - CSCW '96. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.
(http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=240080.240342).
Hinckley, Ken. and
Gonzalo Ramos. 2004. "Stitching: Pen Gestures That Span
Multiple Displays." in Proceedingsof the Working Conference on Advanced
Visual Interfaces - A VI '04. (http://dI.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=989866).
Hunter, Seth, Pattie Maes, Stacey Scott, and Henry Kaufman. 2011. "MemTable: An
Integrated System for Capture and Recall of Shared Histories in Group
Workspaces." P. 3305 in Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '11. New York, New York, USA: ACM
Press. (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfmid= 1978942.1979432).
Ishii, Hiroshi. 1990. "TeamWorkStation: Towards a Seamless Shared Workspace." Pp.
13-26 in Proceedingsof the 1990 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported
Cooperative Work
-
CSCW '90. NewYork, New York, USA: ACM Press.
(http://dI.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=99332.99337).
Kaprow , Allan. 2003. Essays on the Blurring of Art and Life.
(https://www.google.com.hk/bookshl=zh-TW&lr=&id=HMKyDQr4kHEC&pgi
s=1).
Klemmer, Scott R., Mark W. Newman, Ryan Farrell, Mark Bilezikjian, and James A.
Landay. 2001. "The Designers' Outpost." P. 1 in Proceedingsof the 14th Annual
ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology - UIST '01. New
York, New York, USA: ACM Press.
(http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=502348.502350).
162
Liao, Chunyuan et al. 2007. "Papercp: Exploring the Integration of Physical and
Digital Affordances for Active Learning." in Proceedings of Human-Computer
Interaction- INTERACT 2007.
(http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-74800-7_2).
Liao, Chunyuan. 2009. PapierCraft:A Paper-BasedInterface to Support Interaction
with Digital Documents. ProQuest.
(https://books.google.com/books?id=q4lwLnb9_2QC&pgis= 1).
Mackay, Wendy. E. and Anne-Laure Fayard. 1999. "Designing Interactive Paper:
Lessons from Three Augmented Reality Projects." Pp. 81-90 in Proceedingsof
the InternationalWorkshop on Augmented Reality: Placing Artificial Objects in
Real Scenes: PlacingArtificial Objects in Real Scenes. A. K. Peters, Ltd.
(http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=322690.322698).
MacKay, Wendy E. 1999. "Is Paper Safer? The Role of Paper Flight Strips in Air
Traffic Control." ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction6(4):3 1-
40. (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=331490.331491).
Mistry, Pranav and Pattie Maes. 2008. "Quickies: Intelligent Sticky Notes." Pp. PI0P10 in Proceedingof the 4th InternationalConference on Intelligent
Environments (IE '08). IEEE.
(http://digital-library.theiet.org/content/conferences/10.1049/cp_20081185).
Moyle, Michael and Andy Cockburn. 2002. "Analysing Mouse and Pen Flick
Gestures." Pp. 19-24 in Proceedingsof the SIGCHI-NZ Symposium on
Computer-HumanInteraction - CHINZ '02. New York, New York, USA: ACM
Press. (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2181216.2181220).
Pao, Sheng-Ying, Alexander Reben, and Kent Larson. 2012. "Flicklnk: Bridging the
Physical and Digital for Creative Work." Pp. 1-2 in Proceedingof ACM
SIGGRAPH Asia 2012 Emerging Technologies Article No. 9 - SA '12. New York,
New York, USA: ACM Press.
(http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2407707.2407716).
Ryokai, Kimiko, Stefan Marti, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2004. "I/O Brush." Pp. 303-10 in
Proceedingsof the 22nd InternationalConference on Human Factors in
163
Computing Systems - CHI '04. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.
(http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=985692.98573 1).
Santosa, Stephanie. and Fanny Chevalier. 2013. "Direct Space-Time Trajectory
Control for Visual Media Editing." in Proceedingsof the 29th International
Conference on Human Factorsin Computing Systems - CHI '13.
(http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2466148).
Sellen, Abigail J. and Richard H. R. Harper. 2003. "The Myth of the Paperless Office."
(http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=778158).
Signer, Beat. 2005. "Fundamental Concepts for Interactive Paper and Cross-Media
Information Spaces." ETH. (http://e-collection.library.ethz.ch/view/eth:28630).
Steimle, Ju~igen, Oliver Brdiczka, and Max Muhlhauser. 2009. "CoScribe: Integrating
Paper and Digital Documents for Collaborative Knowledge Work." Pp. 174-88
in IEEE Transactionson Learning Technologies.
(http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs-all.jsp?arnumber=5184801).
Stifelman, Lisa, Barry Arons, and Chris Schmandt. 2001. "The Audio Notebook:
Paper and Pen Interaction with Structured Speech." Pp. 182-89 in Proceedingsof
the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
(http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=365096).
Stifelman, J Kisa and Barry Arons. 1993. "VoiceNotes: A Speech Interface for a
Hand-Held Voice Notetaker." Pp. 179-86 in Proceedingsof the INTERACT '93
and CHI '93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
(http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=169150).
Suchman, Lucy. 1999. "Making a Case: 'knowledge' and 'Routine' work in Document
Production." Pp. 29-45 in Workplace Studies: Recovering Work Practiceand
Information System Design, edited by C. Luff, P., Hindmarsh, J., Heath.
Cambridge University Press. (http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/19180/).
Swindells, Colin, Kori M. Inkpen, John C. Dill, and Melanie Tory. 2002. "That One
There! Pointing to Establish Device Identity." P. 151 in Proceedings of the 15th
Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology - UIST '02.
164
New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.
(http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=571985.572007).
Weibel, Nadir et al. 2011. "PaperSketch: A Paper-Digital Collaborative Remote
Sketching Tool." P. 155 in Proceedingsof the 15th InternationalConference on
Intelligent User Interfaces - IUI '11. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.
(http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 1943403.1943428).
Wellner, Pierre. 1993. "Interacting with Paper on the DigitalDesk." Communications
of the ACM 36(7):87-96. (http://dI.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=159544.159630).
Yeh, Ron et al. 2006. "ButterflyNet: A Mobile Capture and Access System for Field
Biology Research." P. 571 in Proceedingsof the 24th InternationalConference
on Human Factorsin Computing Systems - CHI '06. New York, New York, USA:
ACM Press. (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 1124772.1124859).
Zangwill, Nick. 1999. "Art and Audience." Journalof Aesthetics and Art Criticism
57(3):315-32. (http://philpapers.org/rec/ZANAAA-2).
165
166
Appendix
167
168
Appendix A
Usability Study Questionnaire 1
Comparing to a reguar pen, how easy is it to usethe MI*k pen to skech?*
I = much more difficult 3 = the same; S= much easier
1
Much moe
3 4
2
ficLt 0 (
6
Much easier
)
Howasy isitto dareyoursksch on theorewnbyfickingthepu?*
1 2 3 4 5
Extremely
difficult
(D0 y
(
Extremely easy
How intuitive is it to ankrateyour skdtch by twisting the pen clockwis.?*
1 2 3 4 5
Not intuitive at al () C
How
_
Extremely
_
iie is it to even the di
tion of
intuitive
e anim
1 2 3 4 5
Not intuitive atal 0
a Sack
0 Extremely intuitive
Condom a
169
tion by twisting thepwL
?*
Appendix B
Usability Study Questionnaire 2.1
You just collaborated with your partner on the sketch without using Moveink functions
Overal, how do you like this coNabormtiveeperimnce using a regular pen?*
1
2
3 4 5
Love it
Do not like it at at
Based on your stil sketch, what is the next thing you plan on drawing in it?*
Back
Coninme
.
a
170
Appendix C
Usability Study Questionnaire 2.2
You just saw your collaboration process, and used the pen with Moveink function.
Ove,. how do you Ike this coS
ei.
mu.i .Move*
1 2 3 4 6
Donatlikeitatall
Loveit
Comming theprevious tw coaboration omioum, which do you iEkemore?*
1 2
3 4 6
I like session 1(drawing on paper only)
I like session 2 (drawing with Moveink
unions) much more
much mmore
Did you changeyourm*iud on what to draw Nm! after uing the uimatedwvsion? Wy or why not?
171
Did you fed nore engaged in this collaborative work comparing to the previous sesion?*
I = much less engaged, 3 = the same, 5 = much more engaged
1 2 3 4 5
Much less engaged () 0
Much more engaged
Did seeing the animated version of your sketch affect your drawing in any way?*
Were you inspired by it? Did you change your sketching speed? Did you change the way you interacted with
your partner?
Other thoughts?
a Sack
Continue a
172
Appendix D
Usability Study Questionnaire 3
In the previous session you used a regular pen and also used Selective Sharing to share your ideas
with the remote participant. Please compare them.
In the previous session, did you find it difficult to shar your work using a rquar pen?
Extremely dffcwut
1
2
3 4 5
O
K
0
, Extbemely easy
in the previous session, did you find it difficult to share your work using Salective Sharing?'
1 2 3 4 6
Extremely difflicult
) 0j O( Extremely easy
In this rmoteeuting, did you prefr using a rqgdar pan or Selective Sharing to connunicate
your ideas?*
Regular pen
selective shanng
U No preference
173
Did you find Selective Sharing useful in this video confernce?*
Yes
No
C Maybe / Not sure
Mhy or why not?*
a Back
Conummua.
How do you feel when developing your idea on the whiteboard with other psiple watching?*
1 2 3 4 5
Extremefy comfortable
Extremety uncomfortable
Compering to using a whiteboard while oadts watching you, would you fed inore cudoetable
using Selective Sharing to develop your ideas privately and share the desired contolt?*
I zless comfoctable; 3 =the same; 5 more comfotable
1
Less comfortable
2
3 4 5
More comfortable
.,
Can you think of other situations where Selective Sharing may be useful?
Continue
.
a Back
174
Appendix E
Usability Study Questionnaire 4
VOMt Mi you uo =a aboM yaw ipc.du
OMt Mi youw* uoI@"U Wat Mwr m
Mowtvnk?*
lamn MoW#ic
ft~wa&,wdng thet you ih you couid do with Mnoeu
if this protype we Comm
ftimd?*
N
ith an 9 EMuII fonw facor. wuim you racommuuud it to a
O Yes
SSack
hAt you amat mdo now?
Contin..e a
175
Appendix F
Usability Study Questionnaire 5
GMder*
SMale
C Female
Other
Age*
18-25
26-35
>36
Are You
rigt-handd or left-handed?*
Right-handed
Plsm rat your sketching skills in compason totheguwul pic.
1
Not good at sketching ataN
2
3 4
/
6
Veiy skAIMUi at sketchng
o0hwr cowunuts?
w Sack
Sbi
176
*
Left-handed
Appendix G
Consent Form
177
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN
NON-BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH
User Study of a Gestural Pen Interface for Content Creation and Sharing
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Kent Larson (Architect,
Director of Changing Places group in MIT Media Lab), Sheng-Ying Pao (M.S., PhD
candidate in Media Arts and Sciences, MIT), and Caleb Lin (MIT undergraduate student)
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) The results of this study may
contribute to a senior project, research publication, public presentation, thesis or
dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because you are
above 18 years of age and are capable of using a pen. You should read the information
below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand, before deciding whether
or not to participate.
-
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and you are free to choose
whether to be in it or not. If you choose to be in this study, you may subsequently
withdraw from it at any time without penalty or consequences of any kind. The
investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant
doing so.
-
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the MoveInk system and gather knowledge
regarding participants' interactions with it, with emphasis on usability, stickiness, and the
participation experience. We will explore what other ways participants may use the
system.
-
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following things:
- Play with the pen in a controlled and observed (via video) environment.
178
- Interact with other users of the pen.
" Answer questionnaires.
The study will take 45-60 minutes.
-
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There is no known risks or discomforts.
-
POTENTIAL BENEFITS
Your participation will benefit in research towards intuitive interface design.
* PAYMENT FOR PARTICIPATION
We will hand you a $10 gift card on your way out if you would like it.
-
CONFIDENTIALITY
Your identity will not be revealed or compromised except if a section of video or images
from your session are chosen to be used in future publications. If you are not comfortable
being recorded on video, please let us know and we will not record your session.
Any other information that is obtained in connection with this study that can be used to
identify you such as your name will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with
your permission. The data gathered is non-sensitive and will be used for MIT purposes
only. A random number will be assigned to your data that is collected on your survey and
interview responses. Names will not be recorded. The data is password protected and is
only available to researchers of this study.
-
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:
Kent Larson kll@mit.edu
Sheng-Ying Pao aithpao@mit.edu
179
-
EMERGENCY CARE AND COMPENSATION FOR INJURY
If you feel you have suffered an injury, which may include emotional trauma, as a result
of participating in this study, please contact the person in charge of the study as soon as
possible.
In the event you suffer such an injury, M.I.T. may provide itself, or arrange for the
provision of, emergency transport or medical treatment, including emergency treatment
and follow-up care, as needed, or reimbursement for such medical services.
M.I.T. does
not provide any other form of compensation for injury. In any case, neither the offer to
provide medical assistance, nor the actual provision of medical services shall be
considered an admission of fault or acceptance of liability. Questions regarding this
policy may be directed to MIT's Insurance Office, (617) 253-2823. Your insurance
carrier may be billed for the cost of emergency transport or medical treatment, if such
services are determined not to be directly related to your participation in this study.
-
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in
this research study.
If you feel you have been treated unfairly, or you have questions
egriuig youu 1igILs Ws a resarCih sUUJect, you may
oUILat tIe Chiaiiaii
1nLIM
Committee on the Use of Humans as Experimental Subjects, M.I.T., Room E25-143B, 77
Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, phone 1-617-253 6787.
18o
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT OR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
I understand the procedures described above.
My questions have been answered to my
satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study.
I have been given a copy of this
form.
Name of Subject
Name of Legal Representative (if applicable)
Signature of Subject or Legal Representative
Date
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
In my judgment the subject is voluntarily and knowingly giving informed consent and
possesses the legal capacity to give informed consent to participate in this research study.
Signature of Investigator
Date
181
182
Appendix H
Subject Recruitment
Call for Participants for a Study on a Gestural-sensing System for Content
Creation and Sharing.
The Changing Places group at the MIT Media Lab is conducting a study on a
gestural-sensing system for content creation and sharing. We are looking for
participants to evaluate the system. The study will be conducted in three sessions in
approximately 45 minutes to an hour on the same day.
You will be using the gestural sensing system, drawing or writing on paper,
and will be interact with other participants, and answering survey questions in the
end of each session.
If you are over 18 years old, capable of using a pen, you are qualified for this
study!
We are also looking for participants who are skillful at sketching.
You will be given a $10 Amazon gift certificate as a thank you for your
participation after the end of the session.
If you are interested in participating please contact us at
studya@media.mit.edu
Thank you! We look forward to scheduling a session with you at the MIT
Media Lab soon.
183
*This study is conducted by Changing Places group at the MIT Media Lab.
Please send your questions to studya@media.mit.edu if you need further
information.
184
Appendix I
COUHES Approval Letter
185
186
M
R
I
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Committee On the Use of Humans as
Experimental Subjects
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
Building E 25-1 439
(617) 25326787
To:
Kent Larson
E15-394
From:
Leigh Fim, C
COUHES
Date:
09/03/2014
Committee Action:
Approval
COUHES Protocol #:
1406006465
Study Title:
User Study of a Gestural Pen Interface for Content Creation and Sharing
Expiration Date:
07/16/2015
The above-referenced protocol has been APPROVED following Full Board Review by the Committee on the Use of
Humans as Experimental Subjects (COUHES).
If the research involves collaboration with another institution then the research cannot commence until COUHES receives
written notification of approval from the collaborating institution's IRB.
It is the Principal Investigator's responsibility to obtain review and continued approval before the expiration date. Please
allow sufficient time for continued approval. You may not continue any research activity beyond the expiration date
without COUHES approval. Failure to receive approval for continuation before the expiration date will result in the
automatic suspension of the approval of this protocol. Information collected following suspension is unapproved research
and cannot be reported or published as research data. If you do not wish continued approval, please notify the Committee
of the study termination.
Adverse Events: Any serious or unexpected adverse event must be reported to COUHES within 48 hours. All other adverse
events should be reported in writing within 10 working days.
Amendments: Any changes to the protocol that impact human subjects, including changes in experimental design,
equipment, personnel or funding, must be approved by COUHES before they can be initiated.
Prospecitve new study personnel must, where applicable, complete training in human subjects research and in the
Privacy Rule before participating in the study.
HIPAA
COUHES should be notified when your study is completed. You must maintain a research file for at least 3 years after
completion of the study. This file should include all correspondence with COUHES, original signed consent forms, and
study data.
187
188